FFS this reads like russian disinfo. Yes. They do want that. And yes, they’ll get it done now that the SCOTUS has well and truly fucked us all such that states are criminalizing women’s health.
Could they have done it before??? Sure. What would you like to give up for it. Environment? Education? Health? Spending? Name the issue you will kill for it.
“DuMmYCrAtS wOnT LeGaLizE AbOrTiOn BeCAuSe ThEy MakE MoNey On iT” is a cheap and low-effort right-wing talking point. The “left” loves it for what should be obvious reasons.
Why is he reluctant? Because he’s a life-long practicing Catholic.
He did just say they’d codify Roe in the first 100 days, so. I mean, he has personal reservations due to faith but I don’t think you can say he’s reluctant in a legislative sense.
You don’t think something about Roe is different this election cycle? Nothing at all? No critical change or nothin?
Or you still think federal legislation is easy and exists in a vacuum of spacetime, and Democrats are twirling their moustaches and muttering Muwahahahaa while they collect all those bleeding heart votes to . . . what, destroy freedom or something?
I think that’s a pointedly crooked way of looking at it. If you actually believe that, ok, I disagree.
Until the current court started trashing precedent there was little to no reason to prioritize a codification of reproductive rights. Since roe v. wade fell there’s been at least three attempts to restore reproductive rights and all were blocked by Republicans.
deleted by creator
FFS this reads like russian disinfo. Yes. They do want that. And yes, they’ll get it done now that the SCOTUS has well and truly fucked us all such that states are criminalizing women’s health.
Could they have done it before??? Sure. What would you like to give up for it. Environment? Education? Health? Spending? Name the issue you will kill for it.
“DuMmYCrAtS wOnT LeGaLizE AbOrTiOn BeCAuSe ThEy MakE MoNey On iT” is a cheap and low-effort right-wing talking point. The “left” loves it for what should be obvious reasons.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean - No. That’s just wrong.
deleted by creator
Why is he reluctant? Because he’s a life-long practicing Catholic.
He did just say they’d codify Roe in the first 100 days, so. I mean, he has personal reservations due to faith but I don’t think you can say he’s reluctant in a legislative sense.
Not that it’s relevant anymore.
deleted by creator
You don’t think something about Roe is different this election cycle? Nothing at all? No critical change or nothin?
Or you still think federal legislation is easy and exists in a vacuum of spacetime, and Democrats are twirling their moustaches and muttering Muwahahahaa while they collect all those bleeding heart votes to . . . what, destroy freedom or something?
I think that’s a pointedly crooked way of looking at it. If you actually believe that, ok, I disagree.
Until the current court started trashing precedent there was little to no reason to prioritize a codification of reproductive rights. Since roe v. wade fell there’s been at least three attempts to restore reproductive rights and all were blocked by Republicans.
deleted by creator
Don’t kill the golden goose