Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
On Their First Day Back, Congress Introduces Abortion Ban
http://jezebel.com/on-their-first-day-back-congress-introduces-abortion-b-1678050419Never ones to waste a second in their unending quest to fuck you over, on the first day of the new Congress, House Republicans re-introduced a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks. It'll pass, and then it'll go to the Senate, where it'll also pass, and then it'll go to the president, who will veto it. This is a solid, non-bullshit use of our tax dollars! [Violently rage-barfs.]
The bill, HR 36, known as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, was introduced by Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; it would ban all abortions after 20 weeks, under the completely bogus premise that fetuses feel pain at that point in gestation. Franks introduced an identical measure last session, as he has for years, even though, as RH Reality Check points out, a fetal pain measure was found to be unconstitutional in his home state. Last year, the bill passed in a party-line vote before dying in the Senate.
<snip>
Now that the Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate, the bill will likely make it all the way to the president's desk, although there is literally no chance that he'll sign it. So here we are, heading for another session where we get to watch of largely male senior citizens with dust collecting on their genitals play ping-pong with our reproductive rights. Reminder, people under 30: this is what happens when you don't fucking vote.
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I like your proactive spirit! 
Here's a good article from after the election that I had missed, that also gives cause for optimism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/senate-2016_n_6109472.html
In 2016, as Democrats work to retake the Senate, they have a chance to do it while simultaneously expanding the ranks of their progressive members, given the tilt of the playing field. In Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Iowa, Democrats have the potential to elect progressive senators in seats currently held by Republicans. Much, however, will depend on recruiting, and whether the decision is made to target populist-progressive types in the vein of Warren, or more centrist, corporate-friendly picks such as Virginia's Mark Warner.
What many activists are hoping is that the caucus will take note that progressive issues like the minimum wage, reproductive rights and criminal justice reform won on Tuesday, even though many Democratic candidates did not. The question is whether to double down on those positions or abandon them in favor of the moderate, Democrat-lite platforms that were so popular during the 2014 cycle.
"If the ballot measure results are any indication, actual progressive policies remain popular with voters in red and blue states. I believe you’ll see a Senate Democratic caucus fight on behalf of those policies and provide the votes if and when Republicans are ready to act," said Faiz Shakir, a senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
<snip>
Meanwhile, Republicans need to defend 24 seats. Democrats likely will need to pick up five seats to take back the Senate. They'll have a variety of routes to get there.
<snip>
