General Politics Discussion (IX) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1480

This is kind of exactly what I’m talking about.

You have any other ideas that acknowledge and function in a world where the court hands down the overrule opinion? It isn’t preemptive restriction, it’s proactive but incomplete protection.

 

The court comprised as it is & 22 states with trigger laws… can’t imagine why we’d act like the pro-choice position might need to be on the defensive!

 

But those restrictions are what we already have with Roe in place (which is the likely main reason most Americans support some limitation on the right to have an abortion, because that's what they've known most/all of their lives and people tend to favor the status quo).

But the courts and republicans have said that's too much, public opinion be damned. I don't understand why you think they're going to suddenly change if we kowtow to their bullshit opinions.

 

There’s no kowtowing involved. This is about passing passable federal protection before wholesale statewide bans get triggered.

Even Yglesias makes clear that this is a floor from which the only direction is up.

I just don’t understand why, in a world where we’re all aware that Dems can’t pass a codification of Roe that only places restrictions on the final 10-15 weeks, the idea of getting lesser legislation passed is a problem.

Legislation that will inevitably face judicial challenge immediately, legislation that will still be overturned in the courts, legislation that has no hope of surviving long term… *but still protects some people for some time, instead of no one*

 

But that's not going to pass either. And even if it did, once you pass something the energy (in Congress, not from the people) to get something more passed is going to wane really fast.

We literally just saw the same thing happen with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Build Back Better.

 

Matt Y is talking about ceding ground party-wise to win elections. There’s no going up from there. I understanding needing to codify Roe so the SC can’t move everything backwards but to cede late term abortion access as a policy is pretty awful and damaging. And it won’t work!

 

Roe was already a floor and we never really went up from there - from the jump the rights granted in Roe were chipped away and chipped away. Why, as things are moving backwards, does anyone think that putting in a lower floor will allow us to go up faster, if at all?

 

I disagree that a 12- or 15-week protection is untenable right now, but I understand what you’re saying about momentum.

But again, it’s pretty obvious that the pro-choice movement has no legislative momentum. Letting this happen without enacting a passable bandaid is not going to mobilize the country to push ahead with better protection.

 

I’m not saying that lol

This isn’t a fight on even ground where we need to focus on progress. It’s a fight where our side is pretty clearly losing and no amount of indignance is going to change the impossibility of appropriate protections any time soon.

 

Passing pretty much anything related to abortion is impossible right now. If it's not progressive enough it won't make it through the House and if it's not restrictive enough it won't make it through the Senate.

But as soon as Democrats put up something restrictive that doesn't get enough votes within their own party, the chance of ever passing something less restrictive is forever gone.

 

“Cede” is pretty generous language to describe political functioning in the judicial status quo we’re gonna get next month.

You can’t cede what you don’t have. This would be a cession of, if anything, the fantasy that codifying Roe or doing better is possible.

 

I’m not advocating for a vote that won’t pass, I just disagree with your sense of what’s passable.

But we’ll see how it goes. I expect no protection to pass, and many years of scrapping for something that will ultimately be weaker than Roe in the end no matter what.

 

Do you understand that Roe’s holding is based on viability? That’s a very popular position and the absolute bare minimum.

 

You literally said that: "Even Yglesias makes clear that this is a floor from which the only direction is up."

We already had a floor and never went up. Only down. Now we're going to build another floor, starting even lower, and somehow magically start going up? I don't see how that ever works.

Once the Democrats agree to some restrictions there is no coming back.

 

I have a sense that the next few years will see much disparity in public opinion about this, as people who could have been protected but are not start experiencing what it means to lack protection.

Yes, I said the only direction from a floor is up. I’ve also been saying that this is about getting anything federal passed so that statewide bans can’t go into effect. I didn’t say accepting a new floor was the start of some upward propulsion.

I just don’t think anyone is acknowledging that this ruling will make the floor *nothing.*

“Roe is the floor” is great but it’s also not true in any practical way.

 

I completely acknowledge this will make the floor nothing. But I also think it will keep the urgency and need to fight and get something that actually protects people's rights - as @Victor Eremita said, viability needs to be the absolute bare minimum.

My position is this: nothing is going to pass in the Senate right now, since it would require removing the filibuster, and especially not anything that preempts the ability of the states to pass further restrictions. But as soon as Democrats put up something that provides less protection than Roe and it fails within their own party (Manchin ain't voting for it) there is absolutely no chance of ever even getting back to Roe let alone beyond it, which is where we need to be.

 

Trust me I get you, and I can acknowledge that what I’m discussing could ultimately prove to be skittishness, as I’m def motivated by a fear of a national ban in 2025.

But I definitely still disagree from the procedural angle about a losing vote. They wouldn’t put up a 12/15-week protection unless they knew it would pass, so I’m not worried about that death knell for momentum (though putting up Schumer’s symbolic vote to get people on the record on Roe might).

I also think the discussion of momentum overall is a major red herring right. Overturning Roe has taken five decades. Getting it back will be a slog no matter what the Dems do now.

 

the answer is simple, Turtles > Humans

 

Tbh, I enjoyed the never ending plastic bag and media consumption debates much more than the "is Matty Y right about compromising on abortion restrictions" one

 

i think we bring this up every few months but still cracks me up. Dude was definitely posting on internet message boards back in the day