Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Republicans offer bill to codify Roe and Casey   (yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Supreme Court of the United States, Ms Collins, Abortion, Republican US Senators Susan Collins, Pro-choice, abortion rights  
•       •       •

4975 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2022 at 1:39 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



169 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-10 1:34:28 PM  
Republicans that voted to strip privacy and  women's right to decide their own healthcare now say they will only offer tots and pears. If murkowski and Collins actually cared they would vote to change Senate rules to allow a simple majority to pass bills. Going back to the idea of representative democracy instead of minority obstruction.
 
2022-05-10 1:35:45 PM  
Republicans offer a "solution" the way Buffalo Bill just needs help moving a couch.
 
2022-05-10 1:40:15 PM  
Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY
 
2022-05-10 1:45:46 PM  
i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-10 1:49:45 PM  
Have not heard a single statement by concerned republicans about their votes to put public liars on the Supreme Court.
 
2022-05-10 1:51:52 PM  

enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY


Yes but watch how some people will paint this as Dems refusing to do anything.
 
2022-05-10 1:52:11 PM  
I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.
 
2022-05-10 1:56:02 PM  

enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY


It's better that we get nothing at all than settle for even partial measures.

I look forward to the coming nationwide abortion ban that your mindset is all but guaranteeing.
 
2022-05-10 1:57:48 PM  
I don't understand how there are things in this country that are not put to voters on the national stage instead of being left to the devices of these people themselves.

Things that involve the rights of citizens, from gun control to abortion should be left to ALL the voters of this country.

On top of that, things like control over these elected idiots should also be left up to ALL the voters, not these people themselves, like their salaries, raises, and their ability to own/trade stocks.

However we can make that happen would make this country a better place and remind these farking morons that they work FOR the people and that we are not at their mercy to decide what they think is best for 330 million people.
 
2022-05-10 1:58:37 PM  

Weaver95: I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.


You mean the latest strategy of, "Let's get Republicans to vote on the record!" isn't enough for you?
 
2022-05-10 1:59:53 PM  

Shaggy_C: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

It's better that we get nothing at all than settle for even partial measures.

I look forward to the coming nationwide abortion ban that your mindset is all but guaranteeing.


I've removed the protection about beating you up.

I propose a law where we're only allowed beat the shiat out of you from the waist up.

Why would you refuse to vote for such an excellent law
 
2022-05-10 2:00:27 PM  
Oh look, it's the "moderate" Republicans putting forth a bill that they know won't pass. If by some miracle the Democrats picked up enough Senate seats in the mid terms to get 59 Democrat votes for this bill you can rest assured that Collins and Murkowski would immediately fall in line and vote against it.
 
2022-05-10 2:02:23 PM  
Federal abortion protections should instituted, no question. However, given the makeup of the Supreme Court, I do wonder what would happen if a legal challenge to that law arrived on the docket. Not only might the court strike it down, but Alito could dredge up more arguments from England in the 1200s to conclude that the word "person" in the 14th amendment should really include fetuses, and that therefore any abortion at all is unconstitutional. An "Anti-Roe" decision, if you will.

/ Half-joking
// Half. Who knows with this court.
/// And before someone points it out, the 14th amendment says you have to be born to be a "citizen," but then establishes protections for a "person" in the second half of Section 1
 
2022-05-10 2:02:32 PM  

Gubbo: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

Yes but watch how some people will paint this as Dems refusing to do anything.


Republicans will paint it that way for not "compromising" (aka, giving into) with the watered down bill, or other misrepresentations (such as declaring Biden as "Socialist").

Progressives, on the other hand, call it that way because of Manchin being a constant block to the Democratic Party's declared agenda (including voting rights) and the Democratic Party leadership constantly trying to kick Manchin's football despite it always being pulled away (unless it's something he specifically wants, like fossil fuel subsidies for his coal companies, like he got with the BIF after it was split from the BBB and passed separately, then Manchin cheerfully killed the idea of passing the BBB after he got what he want).

Learn the difference.
 
2022-05-10 2:02:36 PM  

foo monkey: Weaver95: I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.

You mean the latest strategy of, "Let's get Republicans to vote on the record!" isn't enough for you?


Once the GOP succeed in outlawing abortion, the game board changes. Biden and pelosi best be ready to handle an EXTREMELY pissed off group of young voters who will not settle down or accept anything less than full restoration of their rights, and additional protections for good measure.
 
2022-05-10 2:04:04 PM  
Maybe it's the fear talking (as a female of childbearing age), but I'd sooner take this than nothing. Easier to move forward from there than from a 50 year rewind.

I'm open to being wrong and listening to why nothing and Roe utterly getting dustbinned is worse, but I'm very afraid right now :(
 
2022-05-10 2:04:27 PM  

Gubbo: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

Yes but watch how some people will paint this as Dems refusing to do anything.


That's usually the centrists' line. Like when the Democrats didn't take the traitor up on her offer for a minimum wage hike to $11.
 
2022-05-10 2:04:40 PM  

OhioUGrad: I don't understand how there are things in this country that are not put to voters on the national stage instead of being left to the devices of these people themselves.

Things that involve the rights of citizens, from gun control to abortion should be left to ALL the voters of this country.


You know we don't have ANY national elections right?  Even POTUS you are really just voting for your elector to the college, not any actual nation wide tally?  You'd have to setup the national vote FIRST, then you could do this.

And there is NO WAY the GQP will let a national vote happen.  They KNOW they will lose every single national vote.
So yes, your idea would make America better, but that's exactly why it will NEVER happen.  One side doesn't want a better America.
 
2022-05-10 2:05:34 PM  
If Congress passes (and Biden signs) a bill codifying Roe and purporting to outlaw states from banning or criminalizing abortion, this Supreme Court would likely rule that such legislation is unconstitutional as supposedly going beyond Congress' enumerated powers in general and its Commerce Clause powers in particular (which is what such a bill would likely be based on).  Of course, if the GQP were to take over Congress and the White House and pass a bill banning abortion nationwide, that same court would rule 180 degrees opposite and say that this would be A-OK under the Commerce Clause, because they're obviously a bunch of goal-oriented partisan coonts rather than real jurists.

So, if Congress wants to pass anything like this and make it enforceable, they'll have to tie it to spending. In other words, not specifically prohibit states from enacting abortion bans, but say that if they do enact such bans they will lose all federal funding for, I dunno, health care programs or something.  Sort of like how they forced the states to enact a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in the 1980s and raise the drinking age to 21 by saying that a state was free to do otherwise but, if they did, they would lose all federal highway funds.
 
2022-05-10 2:06:08 PM  

Ashraiel: Maybe it's the fear talking (as a female of childbearing age), but I'd sooner take this than nothing. Easier to move forward from there than from a 50 year rewind.

I'm open to being wrong and listening to why nothing and Roe utterly getting dustbinned is worse, but I'm very afraid right now :(


Hmm. A half assed federal law would hurt blue states who want women to have actual bodily freedom in their medical decisions?

I dunno what's in this. But it's the gop so it's guaranteed to be bad
 
2022-05-10 2:06:16 PM  
Remember when Republicans said that government shouldn't meddle in your healthcare?
 
2022-05-10 2:06:33 PM  
"Which is very problematic," she said

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-10 2:06:53 PM  

To Wish Impossible Things: Remember when Republicans said that government shouldn't meddle in your healthcare?


Much like that line about all men being created equal, that was a lie.
 
2022-05-10 2:07:04 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: /// And before someone points it out, the 14th amendment says you have to be born to be a "citizen," but then establishes protections for a "person" in the second half of Section 1


The bill of rights applies to all people within the United States, regardless of citizenship status. You can't quarter troops in the house of a legal resident just because they have a green card rather than citizenship, for instance.

So a foetus's "citizenship" doesn't really apply if you determine that it's a person from conception. Unless, of course, you only allow abortion for illegal immigrants...

Though this does raise all kinds of fun questions. Should a foetus be allowed to own a gun? What if a foetus's mother gets arrested; is it cruel and unreasonable punishment to put a foetus in jail with her? What if a foetus kills its mother during childbirth; can the foetus be tried for manslaughter?
 
2022-05-10 2:07:26 PM  
They just want a compromise.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-10 2:08:23 PM  

To Wish Impossible Things: Remember when Republicans said that government shouldn't meddle in your healthcare?


They said healthcare, they meant health insurance. Republicans believe that government shouldn't get between you and your insurance agency, whom will deny your claim for "pre-existing conditions" (if it wasn't currently illegal to do so).
 
2022-05-10 2:09:13 PM  

Weaver95: foo monkey: Weaver95: I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.

You mean the latest strategy of, "Let's get Republicans to vote on the record!" isn't enough for you?

Once the GOP succeed in outlawing abortion, the game board changes. Biden and pelosi best be ready to handle an EXTREMELY pissed off group of young voters who will not settle down or accept anything less than full restoration of their rights, and additional protections for good measure.


Would be a good time for a lot of old establishment Democrats to retire, especially in safer districts, and let the younger more passionate generation take over finally.

The reason Boomers are the least worried are because they don't need abortion anymore, and they're the only generation that remembers a time when it wasn't a guaranteed right.
 
2022-05-10 2:09:31 PM  
These two... Oh great. We're saved.
 
2022-05-10 2:10:50 PM  

Weaver95: I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.


Isn't it more under Congress? Biden can talk all he wants and try to rally public support but I think everyone has made up their mind on this. He won't change a single one.

Now the protests... there is a chance here. I hope they continue and if the women start getting gassed it might make a difference.
 
2022-05-10 2:11:10 PM  

NewportBarGuy: These two... Oh great. We're saved.


media2.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-10 2:11:28 PM  

Gubbo: Ashraiel: Maybe it's the fear talking (as a female of childbearing age), but I'd sooner take this than nothing. Easier to move forward from there than from a 50 year rewind.

I'm open to being wrong and listening to why nothing and Roe utterly getting dustbinned is worse, but I'm very afraid right now :(

Hmm. A half assed federal law would hurt blue states who want women to have actual bodily freedom in their medical decisions?

I dunno what's in this. But it's the gop so it's guaranteed to be bad


I'm sure it is bad, but I guess I'm wondering if it's not better to climb out of a 10 foot hole than a 50 foot one?

I hate all of this so much. Being pregnant is my number one fear, but forced to carry it to term? That's "suicidal thoughts" level of fear.
 
2022-05-10 2:12:09 PM  

enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY


You honestly think the Democrats won't accept this? They get to show how bipartisan they are while "standing up for women's rights." Win-win for them. Problem solved, and they won't have to worry about it for another 50 years.
 
2022-05-10 2:12:27 PM  
This is the braintrust that thought Kavanaugh and ACB would uphold Roe v Wade - why would anyone, especially women, trust them to legislate abortion rights?
 
2022-05-10 2:12:36 PM  
The facade is cracking, the GOP is now scrambling to cut some kind of deal before this completely detonates in their faces. Of course they sent out their moderates to front this, it gives the rest of them wiggle room to distance themselves with.

When they get more desperate, look for a sweeter deal. Maybe a "right to abortion" deal in exchange that whatever 1/6 seditionists are still in the queue get to walk and the commission gets shut down.
 
2022-05-10 2:13:18 PM  

Ashraiel: Maybe it's the fear talking (as a female of childbearing age), but I'd sooner take this than nothing. Easier to move forward from there than from a 50 year rewind.


Incrementalism doesn't work. If Roe can be overturned, so can this law. Passing watered-down abortion rights just means it's easier to dismantle them again in the near future.
 
2022-05-10 2:14:52 PM  
I assume the "realists" and "moderates" will view this as a good thing because it's better than the alternative, which is nothing, correct? Because that's how it usually works when crumbs are thrown to the masses around here.
 
2022-05-10 2:15:13 PM  

DarwiOdrade: This is the braintrust that thought Kavanaugh and ACB would uphold Roe v Wade - why would anyone, especially women, trust them to legislate abortion rights?


They didn't believe that. Not for one second.
 
2022-05-10 2:15:26 PM  

Shaggy_C: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

It's better that we get nothing at all than settle for even partial measures.

I look forward to the coming nationwide abortion ban that your mindset is all but guaranteeing.


Agreed. I don't wanna see nor hear any proposals from the fascist right. It'll be some convoluted dumb farkery packed with 6 week heartbeat bullshiat, no exclusions for rape, correctly guess the beans in the jar, or some other random bullshiat they cook up. That's not compromise.

A proper compromise would be codifying it to law with no restrictions, OR protests and homes burning. There's your farking options. We can't let this become gilead.
 
2022-05-10 2:16:00 PM  

Cyberluddite: If Congress passes (and Biden signs) a bill codifying Roe and purporting to outlaw states from banning or criminalizing abortion, this Supreme Court would likely rule that such legislation is unconstitutional as supposedly going beyond Congress' enumerated powers in general and its Commerce Clause powers in particular (which is what such a bill would likely be based on).  Of course, if the GQP were to take over Congress and the White House and pass a bill banning abortion nationwide, that same court would rule 180 degrees opposite and say that this would be A-OK under the Commerce Clause, because they're obviously a bunch of goal-oriented partisan coonts rather than real jurists.

So, if Congress wants to pass anything like this and make it enforceable, they'll have to tie it to spending. In other words, not specifically prohibit states from enacting abortion bans, but say that if they do enact such bans they will lose all federal funding for, I dunno, health care programs or something.  Sort of like how they forced the states to enact a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in the 1980s and raise the drinking age to 21 by saying that a state was free to do otherwise but, if they did, they would lose all federal highway funds.


There's no need for Commerce Clause shenanigans. The Ninth Amendment says Congress can protect a recognized right throughout the country without the need to tie it to spending, and SCOTUS can't say boo about it.
 
2022-05-10 2:16:10 PM  

Weaver95: foo monkey: Weaver95: I think the GOP will succeed in outlawing abortion, and the Dems will let it happen. It's just not an issue that the democratic party leadership cares about.
I hope I'm wrong...but I'm not getting any real sense of urgency here from Biden's administration.

You mean the latest strategy of, "Let's get Republicans to vote on the record!" isn't enough for you?

Once the GOP succeed in outlawing abortion, the game board changes. Biden and pelosi best be ready to handle an EXTREMELY pissed off group of young voters who will not settle down or accept anything less than full restoration of their rights, and additional protections for good measure.


I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if shiat got real hot once our systems of laws and justice prove that they are neither just nor able to enforce codified law, see all the GQP kiddie diddlers running free.

How does someone look at that system and have faith in it.
 
2022-05-10 2:16:41 PM  

Gubbo: DarwiOdrade: This is the braintrust that thought Kavanaugh and ACB would uphold Roe v Wade - why would anyone, especially women, trust them to legislate abortion rights?

They didn't believe that. Not for one second.


Well, they said it in public, whether they believed it or not.
 
2022-05-10 2:17:03 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Gubbo: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

Yes but watch how some people will paint this as Dems refusing to do anything.

Republicans will paint it that way for not "compromising" (aka, giving into) with the watered down bill, or other misrepresentations (such as declaring Biden as "Socialist").

Progressives, on the other hand, call it that way because of Manchin being a constant block to the Democratic Party's declared agenda (including voting rights) and the Democratic Party leadership constantly trying to kick Manchin's football despite it always being pulled away (unless it's something he specifically wants, like fossil fuel subsidies for his coal companies, like he got with the BIF after it was split from the BBB and passed separately, then Manchin cheerfully killed the idea of passing the BBB after he got what he want).

Learn the difference.


Oh yeah? Well, Bernie is not even a Democrat!
 
2022-05-10 2:18:51 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Gubbo: DarwiOdrade: This is the braintrust that thought Kavanaugh and ACB would uphold Roe v Wade - why would anyone, especially women, trust them to legislate abortion rights?

They didn't believe that. Not for one second.

Well, they said it in public, whether they believed it or not.


I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. Politicians aren't under oath when they make public statements
 
2022-05-10 2:19:01 PM  

Weaver95: Biden and pelosi best be ready to handle an EXTREMELY pissed off group of young voters who will not settle down or accept anything less than full restoration of their rights, and additional protections for good measure.


I can see Biden handling that ... sort of okay.

I can not imagine Pelosi handling that with any amount of grace whatsoever.
 
2022-05-10 2:19:34 PM  

OhioUGrad: I don't understand how there are things in this country that are not put to voters on the national stage instead of being left to the devices of these people themselves.

Things that involve the rights of citizens, from gun control to abortion should be left to ALL the voters of this country.

On top of that, things like control over these elected idiots should also be left up to ALL the voters, not these people themselves, like their salaries, raises, and their ability to own/trade stocks.

However we can make that happen would make this country a better place and remind these farking morons that they work FOR the people and that we are not at their mercy to decide what they think is best for 330 million people.


Next time you want surgery let's put it to a referendum of the people.

Basic human rights cannot be left to a vote of the majority.
 
2022-05-10 2:19:44 PM  
And if brought up for a vote every Republican including Murkowski and Collins would still vote against it.
 
2022-05-10 2:19:54 PM  

Shaggy_C: enry: Republicans decline proposal from Democrats to codify Roe, offer watered down version which nobody in their right mind would accept.

FTFY

It's better that we get nothing at all than settle for even partial measures.

I look forward to the coming nationwide abortion ban that your mindset is all but guaranteeing.


When the partial measures are worse than what we had before the compromise?

The compromise that had to be put forth, in part, because of actions Collins took (voting to confirm the justices she did?)

Yeah, actually, kind of.

"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.
You take a step towards him, he takes a step back.
"Meet me in the middle," says the unjust man.

https://twitter.com/juliusgoat/status/1109516478783590400?lang=en
 
2022-05-10 2:20:13 PM  

Cyberluddite: If Congress passes (and Biden signs) a bill codifying Roe and purporting to outlaw states from banning or criminalizing abortion, this Supreme Court would likely rule that such legislation is unconstitutional as supposedly going beyond Congress' enumerated powers in general and its Commerce Clause powers in particular (which is what such a bill would likely be based on).


It isn't. It's a garbage bill, written by idiots:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Reproductive Choice Act".
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to codify the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)).
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF ALLOWABLE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.-A State-
(1) may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability;

(2) may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman; and

(3) may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(b) Clarification.-For purposes of this Act, unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy impose an undue burden.

(c) Rule Of Construction.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on laws regarding conscience protection.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:

(1) STATE.-The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States, and any subdivision of any of the foregoing.

(2) UNDUE BURDEN.-The term "undue burden" means any burden that places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability.


That's the full text, and yeah, it's set up for an article 1 argument.
On the plus side, invaliding this would set a precedent that Congress can't ban abortions federally either.

/as an aside, they "resolve" ambiguity of "undue burden" by defining it ambiguously as "substantial obstacle"... WTF wrote this garbage?
 
2022-05-10 2:20:45 PM  

Firm Tautology: Cyberluddite: If Congress passes (and Biden signs) a bill codifying Roe and purporting to outlaw states from banning or criminalizing abortion, this Supreme Court would likely rule that such legislation is unconstitutional as supposedly going beyond Congress' enumerated powers in general and its Commerce Clause powers in particular (which is what such a bill would likely be based on).  Of course, if the GQP were to take over Congress and the White House and pass a bill banning abortion nationwide, that same court would rule 180 degrees opposite and say that this would be A-OK under the Commerce Clause, because they're obviously a bunch of goal-oriented partisan coonts rather than real jurists.

So, if Congress wants to pass anything like this and make it enforceable, they'll have to tie it to spending. In other words, not specifically prohibit states from enacting abortion bans, but say that if they do enact such bans they will lose all federal funding for, I dunno, health care programs or something.  Sort of like how they forced the states to enact a nationwide 55 mph speed limit in the 1980s and raise the drinking age to 21 by saying that a state was free to do otherwise but, if they did, they would lose all federal highway funds.

There's no need for Commerce Clause shenanigans. The Ninth Amendment says Congress can protect a recognized right throughout the country without the need to tie it to spending, and SCOTUS can't say boo about it.


A right recognized by who, under whose interpretation of the 9th amendment?

The Supreme Court can in fact say "boo" if they decide they can.
 
2022-05-10 2:22:17 PM  

To Wish Impossible Things: Remember when Republicans said that government shouldn't meddle in your healthcare?


Only the healthcare that they approve of, obviously.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.