254
A Growing Share Of Americans Think States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion
(fivethirtyeight.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
254 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3991 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So wild that 6/10 Americans want universal healthcare and yet it has almost zero support from the people actually in congress.
The real wild thing is by and large a lot of policies the Democrats champion for have wildly popular uptakes across the entire political spectrum in the US but the Democrats themselves lack the overwhelming public support to implement them.
Florida passed a $15 minimum wage ballot measure and yet as a state votes almost wholly for Republicans.
Net neutrality has broad national support. Democrats never have sufficient legislative power to enshrine that. Repeat ad nausuem with all sorts of popular policies like inflation-tied minimum wage, secured abortion access, healthcare for all, legalize marijuana, etc.
These policies are popular. Half of Congress is represented (in loose terms) by a broad coalition of people who haven't lost it but can't really pass anything people really want because they lack the majorities needed to do so unopposed from both across the aisle and within their own ranks, and the other half have completely lost the plot.
I agree with most of this comment however I do not think more than 40% of the democrats currently in congress would ever vote yes on a universal healthcare bill no matter how air tight. The senate definitely doesn’t help, but I’m not even sure about the house.
Also, couldn’t they bring back net neutrality via the FCC right now? Sure it could get overturned by the next republican majority, but make a public commitment to keep changing it back every time the dems are in power so it’s a waste for companies to try and entrench themselves in business models that rely on its death.
Regardless, this is why I want to move to California so badly. Basically the only state consistently fighting for its people these days.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was, at least at its time, a revolutionary piece of legislation that got watered down by Democrats capitulating to Republican demands and "Democrats" (i.e. incredibly conservative Democrats who are Democrats in name but not really) weakening the bill and the fact the Democrats' filibuster proof majority really only existed for a few weeks at best, and despite all of that, it passed and despite its weaknesses, have had immense positive impact on the lives of many everyday people. Democrats passed the bill knowing they would get eviscerated in the immediately following election, which they did.
A clean universal healthcare bill, no strings attached, handed to the Democrats with a sufficiently large majority such that the most conservative of their ranks can break without jeopardizing the bill's passage, will likely pass. I wouldn't bet my life savings on it, but the notion the Democrats in general wouldn't pass public good legislation does not line-up with their actual legislative and voting history. If a clean universal healthcare bill makes it out of the current House's subcommittee with no Republican gotchas, I'm fairly confident most of the Democrats will vote for it, and those that will not are likely to do so for political maneuvering knowing it won't pass.
You may say I'm being idealistic, and honestly I admit I am. But I think chances are good with a strong majority trifecta, strong and large enough for holdouts to vote against and not jeopardize its passage. Such a majority will probably never exist for another half a generation at least though. And at least from my PoV, dismissing the possibility is a grim outlook and a great way to lead to both discouragement and disillusionment of the process, and at least to me, there is only one major political party that benefits from people being disengaged and disillusioned.
Net Neutrality as it stands currently is being implemented because a variety of states (WA, CA, as examples) implemented some form of NN that is similar but not quite different. The FCC tried to preempt the ability for individual states to implement their own NN-esque laws or requirements but this was shot down by the courts. The consequence is, pragmatically speaking, NN of some form exists without the FCC directly intervening anymore because telecom companies aren't very keen in implementing this at a state-based level, so very much like how CA has an undue influence in emissions standards due to its large market and the fact no company really wants to build one product for CA and one product for some of the rest of the states.
A number of West Coast states are aggressively passing legislation to the benefit of their citizens (WA's minimum wage law has been signed for a while now, for example).