this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
965 points (98.2% liked)

World News

32282 readers
788 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

China has had affordable, over-the-counter abortion pills since the 1970s. Kind of wild when you hear stories of people in the west who aren't guaranteed this, and haveto argue back-and-forth with their doctor and insurance on justifying it and getting it covered.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

And retroactive...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

But not all support it, with the Vatican repeating its opposition to abortion. "There can be no 'right' to take a human life," the Vatican institution said in a statement, echoing concerns already raised by French Catholic bishops. It appealed to "all governments and all religious traditions to do their best so that, in this phase of history, the protection of life becomes an absolute priority".

!CW Wrote in a bit of angst.

Raping kids on the other hand, is mandated by God.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

“There can be no ‘right’ to take a human life,”

Wasn't so long ago that the Vatican had a very different take on that, or maybe it's different after said "life" leaves the womb?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Keep in mind that it's not the right to abortion that has been added to the constitution. It's the freedom to abort for women. Massive difference. It doesn't guarantee access to abortion, it says nothing about the delay to get an abortion and it leaves out trans men. Still a victory, but with pretty big nuances.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Constitutionally, it means that they're to be given the freedom to abort. Which means that if it's their choice, the state has to provide the means. Interestingly, it also means that a doctor claiming exemption because it's legally allowed c1n fuck off because the constitution is the first law.

(So, yeah, what you said but backwards)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 113 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Thanks for posting the single article which does not say "France is the first country to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution." It's not. Yugoslavia was. In 1974.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Abortion has been legal in France since 1975, but polls show around 85% of the public supported amending the constitution to protect the right to end a pregnancy.

Before the vote, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told parliament that the right to abortion remained "in danger" and "at the mercy of decision makers".

While resistance from right-wingers in parliament failed to materialise, President Macron has been accused of using the constitution for electoral ends.

In a 2001 ruling, the council based its approval of abortion on the notion of liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is technically part of the constitution.

And so nothing authorised us to think that France was exempt from this risk," said Laura Slimani, from the Fondation des Femmes rights group.

"There can be no 'right' to take a human life," the Vatican institution said in a statement, echoing concerns already raised by French Catholic bishops.


The original article contains 515 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 78 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The US could've done the same, and yet...

[–] [email protected] 89 points 8 months ago (6 children)

You know what? It's BECAUSE of the US that we, French, have this now.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

You're welcome

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

To add an amendment to the US Constitution, it needs a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

L O L O L

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

And yet. There was absolutely no way the US had the huge support needed to change its constitution.

66% approval from 66% of states I think. Atm the us could not get that many to agree on anything. Including a right to air.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

What? Where were they anywhere close to that?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

How? No way 75% of the states would agree.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

When Dems had the supermajority during the first part of Obama’s term, Roe could have easily been codified into law. They slept on this at the time, saying there were “other priorities.”

So, while this doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to become the law of the land, with how incredibly dysfunctional Congress has become, it may be the case that Article V conventions are the only way to change the laws to suit the needs of the public over the desires of the elites.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Ah! The mythical supermajority that never really was.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

their other priorities were arguing back and forth for months watering down a republican-written healthcare reform bill for the supposed benefit of republicans who still didn't vote for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (7 children)

How old are you? That's was a very different demographic of democratic senators you were looking at back then.

In 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition, also known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, was a caucus of moderate members from the Democratic Party in the United States. The Blue Dogs were characterized by their moderate to conservative views within the Democratic Party[1]. During that time, the Blue Dogs played a significant role in shaping policy and negotiations within the Democratic Party.

The Blue Dog Coalition peaked at 54 members in 2009 when Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives[3]. These members were influential in various policy discussions and were known for their moderate stance on many issues.

Some notable Blue Dog Democratic senators during that period included individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who expressed optimism about reaching agreements on important issues like healthcare reform with a majority of the more than 50 Blue Dogs[5]. The Blue Dogs were recognized for their willingness to work across party lines and find bipartisan solutions to key legislative matters.

Citations: [1] Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition [2] The Blue Dogs bark - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/the-blue-dogs-bark-018434 [3] What the Decline of Blue Dog Democrats Tells Us About ... https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2017/12/what-the-decline-of-blue-dog-democrats-tells-us-about-american-politics/548813/ [4] List of members of the Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Blue_Dog_Coalition [5] Conservative Democrats Expect a Health Deal - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/politics/02bluedogs.html

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

And that’s one of the major problems with America.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

How? No way 75% of the states would agree.

By electing sane politicians and not a bunch of weak populists who bend for the loudest rightwingnuts...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Faux populists, populists are actually cool

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, they're not. Populism as a whole is a horrible political strategy which benefits only a few members of the political class.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Populism is literally focusing on the masses. Now elitists use it as a pejorative to refer to fascists when fascists are also elitist with faux populist rhetoric.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals. Has been so since always. Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a "good political administration".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals.

I mean I've heard people accuse Bernie of being a populist but I don't think he's focused on short term goals. Are they using the term wrong?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Quite clearly, yes. Bernie may rely on populism more than a hardline socialist, but as a relative metric against his rivals, he's not even close to a populist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Ok. Start with Mississippi.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Sir this is a Wendy’s

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Just gotta have another civil war of course. EZ.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›