• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

ajido

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Dec 7, 2018
1,197
How many of these same companies donate to Republicans?

This is so fucked. Why on earth would an employee need to submit an expense to her employer for a medical procedure?!! Like it's a nice sentiment but no employer should have information on which employees are seeking what medical care.
 

CesareNorrez

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,528
Can we get some threadmarked or stickied information on Abortion Funds? It's at least a piece of action that can be done today.
 

pink

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,101
This is so fucked. Why on earth would an employee need to submit an expense to her employer for a medical procedure?!! Like it's a nice sentiment but no employer should have information on which employees are seeking what medical care.

its cheaper for a company to pay for your travel + your abortion than it is have an employee take time off for maternity leave and have 18+ years of leaving work early to take care of your kid etc
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,359


I would've thought that Alaska and Kansas, being both red, would also be pro-ban... Can someone from those states confirm if that is so, and how come?

Any other red-state that I'm missing that would allow abortion rights?

Or on the contrary, is any blue state considering bans, or under current bans unless revoked?

As a non-american I'd like to expand my knowledge on the issue and it's consequences at a state level in such a short time seem momentous to me.
 

xxracerxx

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
31,222
Or on the contrary, is any blue state considering bans, or under current bans unless revoked?
No

Also helpful:
screenshot2022-06-24a1wjr6.png


Why vote? Look at the states that have protections for abortion already in place. Voting at the state and local levels matter just as much, if not more, as every 4 years.
 

AtmaPhoenix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,001
The Internet
The problem isn't Democrats saying to go vote in the upcoming election.

The problem is Democrats ONLY saying go vote in the upcoming election. The people in power, the people doing the messaging and that we elected already, should be saying what they are going to do NOW in response to this. Instead, their message is that "this is the voter's fault" and "we can't do anything until we're re-elected."

They, of course, have no motivation to do anything other than be re-elected because they're all in their 60s and 70s and 80s and these sorts of rights don't even really matter to them anymore, but they could ensure their re-election by getting their messaging right.
 

Foffy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,395

I did not make my post through Google Translate, so what are you not understanding? What facts are you questioning?

ISIS, a den of savages and religious crazies, advocates for universal healthcare. The Republican party, a more mainstreamed group of savages and religious crazies, wants a debtors class when getting school lunch. Are they really less depraved?

Chomsky called the GOP the most dangerous organization in human history. He's not wrong. It's time to stop bullshitting ourselves about it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,306
Atlanta GA
maybe I'm naive but sayings like these rings hollow at times

It shouldnt. For some reason there are people who feel the need to be personally convinced by senate Democrats to go vote to protect their own rights. Hearing people say "go vote" should get you to do the same. Go tell everyone in your life who you know doesnt vote to go vote. If they respond in the same manner or tell you that their vote doesnt matter, you convince them that they are wrong.

Voting doesnt change the thing. Sorry, but there is no direct tanglible personal reward for voting other than maintaining your democracy, and a sticker. You have to consistently show up and get more people to do the same, in order to elect enough people to change the thing.
 
The problem is Democrats ONLY saying go vote in the upcoming election. The people in power, the people doing the messaging and that we elected already, should be saying what they are going to do NOW in response to this. Instead, their message is that "this is the voter's fault" and "we can't do anything until we're re-elected."
They're not saying they can't do anything until they're re-elected, they're saying they can't do anything until more of them are elected. Which is true.

There is not anything they can do legislatively along as Manchin and Sinema oppose abolishing the filibuster.
 

xxracerxx

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
31,222
The problem isn't Democrats saying to go vote in the upcoming election.

The problem is Democrats ONLY saying go vote in the upcoming election. The people in power, the people doing the messaging and that we elected already, should be saying what they are going to do NOW in response to this. Instead, their message is that "this is the voter's fault" and "we can't do anything until we're re-elected."

They, of course, have no motivation to do anything other than be re-elected because they're all in their 60s and 70s and 80s and these sorts of rights don't even really matter to them anymore, but they could ensure their re-election by getting their messaging right.
They need more people in seats to make passing laws and meaningful change...so yes, voting is what they are calling for.
 

Teiresias

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,229
Even if Congress passes a law SCOTUS can just call it unconstitutional.

SCOTUS can also call state law unconstitutional.

So not sure what's being voted for here. The King Hath Ruled.

For one there are Senate seats being voted on that directly affect the ability of Biden to put another judge on the SCOTUS during his term - you know the body that just made that ruling. But, fine, keep being reductionist in your quest maximum defeatism.
 

Midnight

Member
Jan 5, 2018
793
Not from the US, but it's still infuriating to see this happen. Fucking hell, these are basic human rights.

People - vote. Always.
 

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,097
I would've thought that Alaska and Kansas, being both red, would also be pro-ban... Can someone from those states confirm if that is so, and how come?

I'm in Alaska.
Our abortion laws are very very hard to repeal here. Ya, you wouldn't expect it but this state can be weird at times about where it lies politically.
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
I would've thought that Alaska and Kansas, being both red, would also be pro-ban... Can someone from those states confirm if that is so, and how come?

Any other red-state that I'm missing that would allow abortion rights?

Or on the contrary, is any blue state considering bans, or under current bans unless revoked?

As a non-american I'd like to expand my knowledge on the issue and it's consequences at a state level in such a short time seem momentous to me.

Alaska is pretty libertarian (individual rights) and has elected pro-choice officials even if they are Republican. Kansas has a Dem governor who would veto any laws passed by state legislature.

North Carolina is another red state with a Dem governor.

Unlikely any blue states pass restrictions since the issue is like 80-20 in blue states and 50-50 in red states.
 

Alpheus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,664
Congrats Roberts you're Court is now one for the history books, as one of the worst we've ever had that traded the Court's legitimacy for partisanship. I hope the conservative Justices never know any peace in their quiet moments alone, accompanied only by the weight of their horrible deeds, but that would require them to have a soul and a heart.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,250
I think what everyone here is tacitly admitting is that there is no answer outside of a sweeping change in the power and structure of the Supreme Court. Court packing isn't it.

Then what's the answer? What does "sweeping change" entail and how the hell is that going to happen with how split everything is right now. We need immediate solutions
 
May 26, 2018
24,030
For one there are Senate seats being voted on that directly affect the ability of Biden to put another judge on the SCOTUS during his term - you know the body that just made that ruling. But, fine, keep being reductionist in your quest maximum defeatism.

Not maximum defeatism. Just think that particular thing is done, legally speaking, unless/until abortion is banned nationwide. There are scenarios that haven't happened yet and those are certainly on the ballot. Doesn't stop you from electing more Senators.
 

finchy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
218
U.K
Sorry if its a dumb question im from UK but i dont understand how so few people can make a law with such huge repercussion.