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.
man, fuck Slobodan Milosevic
And Tuđman and Izetbegović
And my axe ?
The US could’ve done the same, and yet…
You know what? It’s BECAUSE of the US that we, French, have this now.
Every story needs a villain.
…Are we the baddies?
Yes you are FilthyHookerSpit.
You’re welcome
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.
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…
Ok. Start with Mississippi.
Yes but this continues to be true. The top level poster implied that at some point is was true, but it is no longer true. It’s never been reasonably possibly in the us and nothing has changed recently to make it meaningfully less possible.
Yeah, that isn’t going to work, because either
- !>25% of your population doesn’t believe women have that right
or
- Your countries existing laws give too much voting power to a minority
Faux populists, populists are actually cool
No, they’re not. Populism as a whole is a horrible political strategy which benefits only a few members of the political class.
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.
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”.
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?
Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a “good political administration”.
That’s populism.
Populists just tell you what you want to hear so they get power. There’s no intention to follow through.
Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the ‘common voter.’ It is neither good nor bad.
Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.
The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.
Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort ‘true populists’ who are actually trying to help their supporter base from ‘faux-populists’ fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.
political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.
Wikipedia asserts a similar definition
History.com again corroborates this:
The style of politics that claims to speak for ordinary people and often stirs up distrust has risen up on both sides of the political spectrum throughout U.S. history.
Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say ‘populism’.
or claims to champion, the common person
That seems to be the type of populists we have in the current decade.
The brilliant minds behind ancient aliens have spoken people! Throw in the towel!
This is amusing, thank you for sharing.
Just gotta have another civil war of course. EZ.
And that’s one of the major problems with America.
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.
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
Hello friend. I’m old enough to recognize that the corporatist blue dog Dems are the same corporatists running the DNC now. The very same conservative neoliberals who refuse to deliver on any meaningful social reform that our people desperately need, because their donors don’t want them to. But, I’m young enough to still believe we can find a way to change that rigged system to instead represent us.
You need to realize that outside of your internet bubble and in the real world people just want boring plain old boring liberalism & conservatism
Yeah, people usually go “thank god I have no food in my pantry, because I couldn’t fix my teeth to chew it, but at least the stock exhange is looking good, I’m sure that this time some wealth will trickle down my way”
The average American makes 60 to 90k per year. I hope that clarifies for you why normal boring political ideologies keep winning elections.
Respectfully disagree. As a habitual grass-toucher, I find the vast majority of people I discuss progressive policies with are massively in favor of all of them. Paid family leave, increased minimum wage, access to best quality healthcare outside of employers, universal federal background checks for firearms purchases…these are all massively popular. And it’s not just my anecdotal experiences here, polling data shows these all to be extremely popular, even on both sides of the liberal and conservative ”divide”. We are well within our rights to expect the government to do things for us, not just for the corporations.
It’s mostly mainstream media outlets such as msnbc, fox, cnn, etc that perpetuate this myth of how the status quo is so wonderful and we could never do better. According to them, the politicians in Washington are political geniuses who should be revered. And wouldn’t you know it - these same multinational companies rake in profits to the tune of billions due to the system favoring them.
Maybe as well, some boomers who never gave a shit about politics and were able to raise a family on a single income back in the day would think this. Most normal people know this is complete bs and that we’re being screwed, including the vast majority of those under 40 who tend to not consume the traditional news media and get it from varied other sources. You just don’t hear about how we’re all being robbed of our wealth and our dignity on tv.
Yes that’s the crux of it isn’t it. Progressive ideas are popular but progressive candidates don’t win. I think it’s a Nixon opening China situation, voters want universal healthcare but they want a person like Ted Cruz to be the one to give it to them.
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.
precisely
“Other priorities”: if men needed abortion they would be able to get them at a fast-food drive through while they are waiting for their order
Ah! The mythical supermajority that never really was.
It quite literally was that until Kennedy died.
With Franken not sworn in for months, Byrd hospitalized and Kennedy’s death they never had 60 sitting senators.
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
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.
And what, let people who don’t deserve air get the air? I’m always going to get air, they told me that. I deserve the air. So why should other people get my air? Fuck em, they shouldn’t get any air.
Grins.
Thats all right. I’m sure we can get a constitutional ammendment ensuring all citizens are limited to breathing from where the believe the sun resides.
Trump voters will love it.
What? Where were they anywhere close to that?
deleted by creator
Yeah, well, we put “You can’t be president if you lead an insurrection” into our constitution, so I just hope France holds the line better than the US did.
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.
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)
This is not true, a doctor still has the right to refuse to perform an abortion but has the obligation to redirect to another practitioner who would perform it. Just like today
It’s not completely obvious. The constitution supersedes the fact that he’s allowed to refuse. Someone would be in their right to sue him.
https://piaille.fr/@malauss/112045942102612011 see number 14.
Right and freedom are similar. Even the conseil
constitutionneld’Etat confirmed it. So no, it’s not a massive difference but a trick added by a senator to delay and create doubt on the law. https://piaille.fr/@malauss/112045942102612011
News about France and most of the comments are Americans complaining xD
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.
“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?
France masterfully trolling Third World countries.
And retroactive…
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!
Great…we Americans will now be required to have a special travel visa that requires a pregnancy test… pregnant? No travel for you! Specially France!
Thanks Republicans! So smart! Like a really smooth rock!
Cool but too specific. How about the right to bodily autonomy? This includes abortion, assisted suicide, drug use, tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery, and gender reassignment.
Ever heard about babysteps? Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
This progress isn’t progressive enough!
Societal progress is like the figurative drop of water eroding the stone over time. It will happen. It just takes time. I’m protesting right wingers and bigots since the 90s. And many of the ideas and politics that are nowadays common weren’t back then. Give it time.
From what i read:
“We’re sending a message to all women: your body belongs to you and no one can decide for you,” he added."
Your body… well seems like a abortion is not about “your body” but a body from someone else’s…
This world is crazy sometimes 😕
Nobody has the right to live inside your body except yourself.
It’s certainly not about your body, that’s for damn sure.
