Are Democrats really pro-choice?

[pearl]

Democrats could do this with their simple majority, but Manchin has not supported this move.

It would be disastrous for the dems if they lose the senate. I think thats basically why they don't kill the
filibuster.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope the 60 vote requirement tips the balance.

The normal 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster can be - and has been - overcome by a vote to override a standing rule of the Senate, which only needs a simple majority:

Nuclear option - Wikipedia

... but the Democrats likely don't have a simple majority. Not for an abortion rights bill, anyhow.

 

[esmith]

The normal 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster can be - and has been - overcome by a vote to override a standing rule of the Senate, which only needs a simple majority:

Nuclear option - Wikipedia

... but the Democrats likely don't have a simple majority. Not for an abortion rights bill, anyhow.

Not necessarly if they, Democrats, compromise unlike their HR3755 bill

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarly if they, Democrats, compromise unlike their HR3755 bill

Looks to me like the Women's Health Protection Act was a massive compromise.

 

[esmith]

Looks to me like the Women's Health Protection Act was a massive compromise.

It include late term abortions which was never going to pass.

 

[tytlyf]

It include late term abortions which was never going to pass.

Which are very rare and only done to protect the life of the mother.
You'd prefer the mother to die, to save the child.
I'd prefer the mother to live, so she can have more children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It include late term abortions which was never going to pass.

Late term abortions when the pregnant person's life is at risk. Like I said: it was a massive compromise.

Keep in mind the ideal that they're backing down from:

• The right to abortion is protected at all times during pregnancy.
• Abortion services are provided free of charge to anyone who needs one.
• Medical staff whose job duties include abortion care who refuse to do their jobs can go find other work.

Where do you think the happy medium should be between that an the anti-choicers' position of "no abortions anywhere at any time"?

 

[Shaul]

When you answer your own (good) question
so glibly, I wonder if it's right.
Could it be that not all Dems are pro-choice,
& this prevents passing such legislation?

I also wonder...
If they did pass legislation enabling abortion,
would a suit against it be ruled unconstitutional
by Trump's new fundie super-majority?

Of course not all Democrats support abortion. More importantly they don’t want to step up and go on the record. Because if they do they fear voter response in the upcoming elections.

 

[Shaul]

Because bills in the Senate need 60 votes to pass. Since the democrats don't have 60 members they can't pass what they want.

Some say they should do what McConnell did to to confirm judges and revoke the filibuster and the 60 vote requirement. Democrats could do this with their simple majority, but Manchin has not supported this move.

So, it's republicans in the way. And as we know, it was republicans who worked to get three justices with religious bias onto the supreme court and they did exactly what republicans wanted them to do. Overturn Roe.

Democrats are working to help women get reproductive care in many other ways.

So your claim in the OP is wrong.

That doesn’t work. They brought other legislation, such as the Build Back Better [sic] bill when it didn’t have hope of getting 60% in the Senate. And you are ignoring that bringing a bill that doesn’t pass itself can serve the purpose of getting legislators on the record. But the Democrats are afraid to do so. Because it would expose how many Democrats would not be willing to do so. That’s the truth. It isn’t about the Republicans filibuster. It is about the divisiveness within the Democrats.

 

[PureX]

Which are very rare and only done to protect the life of the mother.
You'd prefer the mother to die, to save the child.
I'd prefer the mother to live, so she can have more children.

Doesn't matter. The words "late term abortion" were all the opposition needed to repeat.

 

[Shaul]

It will get fillibustered in the Senate by Republicans, that is why...

That is a reason to do it, not a reason to not do it. If Democrats sincerely thought that the body politic supports abortion they should be happy to get it on record by a Congressional vote who supports it and who does not. The issue isn’t the Republicans and any filibuster. The reason is the Democrats can’t sell abortion to the American public, and they know it.

 

[F1fan]

That doesn’t work. They brought other legislation, such as the Build Back Better [sic] bill when it didn’t have hope of getting 60% in the Senate.

It was an infrastructure bill that aimed to invest in America so our economy and opportunities could grow into the future. It was a direct response to wjhat China is doing, who spent about 11% of their GDP in infrastructure. If the USA hopes to compete in global economics we need to invest in our infrastructure NOW. Bridges, our power grid, internet access, communications, green energy production, etc. all need to improve if the economy is going to expand and more jobs created. It seems republicans are more interested in hurting democrat ideas than working for the future.

You tell me what republicans are doing to work toward the future.

And you are ignoring that bringing a bill that doesn’t pass itself can serve the purpose of getting legislators on the record. But the Democrats are afraid to do so. Because it would expose how many Democrats would not be willing to do so. That’s the truth. It isn’t about the Republicans filibuster. It is about the divisiveness within the Democrats.

Democrats have brought many bills to a vote that don't have the votes. So your claim here is absurd and counter to facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

As we have learned recently, corporations aren't interested in blocking abortions. So the politicians are free to vote according to their conscience. And as most of them think that the most conscious move is what gets them the most power or money, it should be possible to buy some votes. Bribery is legal in the US, so just use it.

I think you misunderstand our laws & their consequences.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which are very rare and only done to protect the life of the mother.
You'd prefer the mother to die, to save the child.
I'd prefer the mother to live, so she can have more children.

Nonsense. There's thosands of late term abortions done for convenience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course not all Democrats support abortion. More importantly they don’t want to step up and go on the record. Because if they do they fear voter response in the upcoming elections.

Aye, there is some pressure to conform in those parties.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It include late term abortions which was never going to pass.

Because some people like to pretend that "late term abortions" are done for fun or convenience and not to save the woman's life.

 

[tytlyf]

Nonsense. There's thosands of late term abortions done for convenience.

That's what low-information voters believe. We're referring to "right up to birth" (aka 35 weeks).
These are abortions that happen with mothers who want the child.
It is convenient to know you have the option of saving your life. Versus dying.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense. There's thosands of late term abortions done for convenience.

Citation needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because some people like to pretend that "late term abortions" are done for fun or convenience and not to save the woman's life.

I'm inclined to think that anyone having a late
term abortion has devoted much thought to
the matter...likely more than to an earlier one.
Such considerations would be complex, involve a
physician, & not be amenable to government regulation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's what low-information voters believe. We're referring to "right up to birth" (aka 35 weeks).
These are abortions that happen with mothers who want the child.

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook:

"Late Term Abortion

As someone who assists in these cases, I can tell you, if you're against third trimester abortion, you don't understand why they happen.

9\10 Abortions are done in the first trimester; half of them are done by taking pills that cause menstruation.

Late term abortions are very rare and very sad events that no one is excited about. They are incredibly hard decisions for the parents to make.

These are wanted babies and something has gone very wrong.

I can tell you that it's never done because someone with a healthy pregnancy just decided to abort.

If you are for freedom, you are for abortion. If you care about people being able to make the hardest decision a parent can make, you are for late term abortion.

These are gut wrenchingly painful decisions that the government shouldn't be involved in."


My boss' wife had to have a "late term abortion" when her very wanted twins died in her womb in her seventh month. It was absolutely devastating for her but it probably saved her life. And now she has a son that she loves very much. We need to let people make their own medical decisions. Abortion is healthcare.

 

[Estro Felino]

My boss' wife had to have a "late term abortion" when her very wanted twins died in her womb in her seventh month. It was absolutely devastating for her but it probably saved her life. And now she has a son that she loves very much. We need to let people make their own medical decisions. Abortion is healthcare.

Nobody casts doubt on those.
I want some feedback about late term abortions (after the 18th-20th week) of perfectly healthy babies carried by perfectly healthy mothers.
What do you think about them? (and yes ...they do and did take place, even if they are a very small percentage)