What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Zoupa]

The story doesn't present the Republican argument.

You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.

[Jacob]

The story doesn't present the Republican argument.

You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.

I don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.

[grumbler]

I'm not seeing the argument.

You are assuming that the Republican argument is based on the bill presented to them.  It's not.  The Republican argument is based on "Fuck the Dems, we say no because fuck them and our voters are too stupid to analyze our reasoning."

[grumbler]

I don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.

Agree.  He's an anti-Trump Republican, I think, and bothered by the depth to which the House Republicans have shoved their noses up Trump's ass. I value his insights because they aren't based on the assumptions that inform my insights.

[Zoupa]

The story doesn't present the Republican argument.

I value his insights because they aren't based on the assumptions that inform my insights.

The Republican argument is based on "Fuck the Dems, we say no because fuck them and our voters are too stupid to analyze our reasoning."

So what's the insight exactly?

[Jacob]

So what's the insight exactly?

Still waiting for Teach to lay out the Republican reason for voting against.

Dorsey said it's because the contracepties bill enables abortifacients, but the posted language of the bill doesn't support that. So either the GOP is claiming that while it's untrue, or the they have some other reason to vote against, or there is some other language of the bill that in fact does enable abortifacients.

[Eddie Teach]

The story doesn't present the Republican argument.

You know that you don't have to play devil's advocate on every single fucking issue right.

I don't think that's what Eddie's doing. My impression is that Teach is a Republican, so he is arguing his actual position - but calibrating his arguments to avoid getting pulled into long drawn out arguments and dogpiled.

You're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.

[Jacob]

You're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.

I misunderstood, then. My apologies. I have you own as GOP aligned, though I never assumed anything about any kind of formal membership status.

As for the GOP perspective for voting against, I too would like to know their reasoning. Maybe it is as Dorsey said, though as per Minsky's post it seems dishonest if true.

[alfred russel]

You're both wrong. I was fishing for information. Also, I have never belonged to a political party.

I misunderstood, then. My apologies. I have you own as GOP aligned, though I never assumed anything about any kind of formal membership status.

As for the GOP perspective for voting against, I too would like to know their reasoning. Maybe it is as Dorsey said, though as per Minsky's post it seems dishonest if true.

I went out to national review online to get the perspective, and a quick perusal of the top half of the front page found a couple articles about republican responses to the bill which indicated opposition...but not a straight up explanation of why the bill sucks. But here is one article and i think it gets you the perspective:

Susan Collins Working on Alternative to House Democrats' 'Contraception' Bill

House Democrats passed a "contraception" bill on Thursday that all but a handful of House Republicans opposed because it would override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), would prohibit laws and regulations defunding Planned Parenthood, and could create a federal right to the abortion drug used during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

But in the Senate, Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, is working on an alternative bill that would codify into federal law the right to contraception first established by the Supreme Court in 1965. "Senator Collins supports federal protections for contraception access, and she's working on a bill with Senators Kaine, Murkowski, and Sinema that would codify the right to use contraception first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold, while also maintaining protections for religious liberties," Collins communications director Annie Clark told National Review in an email.

Although Collins and Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski support a right to abortion — they're the only Republican senators who do — they opposed a Democratic bill to "codify Roe" because that bill went beyond Roe by superseding RFRA and prohibiting parental-consent abortion laws, among other provisions. As a Collins–Murkowski press release about the Democrats' abortion bill noted, "Congress has never before adopted legislation that contains an exemption" to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Collins and Murkowski introduced their own bill to enshrine in federal law Roe's expansive right to abortion in all 50 states; no other Senate Republicans signed on to that bill.

Not a single state has tried to ban contraception since 1965, when Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, and pro-life congressional Republicans have repeatedly voted for billions of dollars in federal funding for contraception in the Title X and Medicaid programs. There is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government. But pro-life legislators would oppose any bill that tramples on conscience rights, ensures taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood (America's largest abortion provider), or creates a federal right to the abortion drug commonly used during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

It remains to be seen whether the Collins alternative would remove all the poison pills that were in the House Democrats' version. Despite those measures in the Democrats' contraception bill, President Biden and other Democrats in Washington have feigned ignorance about why almost all House Republicans voted against it.

"OK, so not only do Republicans want to institute a federal ban on abortion, but today 195 of them voted against codifying the right to contraception," Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet. "This was not a 'gotcha' bill with a bunch of stuff btw. It was pretty straightforward."

The bill was of course anything but straightforward, and that's one reason why Democrats skipped the usual committee hearing and brought the bill to a vote before the whole House a little less than one week after text of the bill began circulating in the Capitol.

[Jacob]

I see. Thanks for digging it up, Dorsey.

Personally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.

And practically speaking, "conscience rights" could make birth control inaccessible to a signficant number of people.

[Jacob]

So Bannon is found guilty and may go to prison.

[viper37]

A martyr for the cause.

[Sheilbh]

I see. Thanks for digging it up, Dorsey.

Personally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.

And practically speaking, "conscience rights" could make birth control inaccessible to a signficant number of people.

I believe the Democrat strategy is to do a sort of omnibus abortion bill and that's the preference of abortion groups - but unlikely to pass. I think there is an argument (especially politically) for splitting it up a bit like this. Make Republicans repeatedly and explicitly vote on the particulars of their position: when a mother's life is at risk, in cases of rape, in cases of abortion etc. Don't let them hide behind a maximalist position even if that's your end goal.

[The Minsky Moment]

Personally I find the "there is no doubt that contraception will continue to be legal in every state and funded by the federal government" a bit rich, given recent developments.

Yes, it raises credibility concerns when the writer does not seem to understand the meaning of the word "no".  The very fact RFRA is being mentioned indicates an understanding that there are substantial blocs of people in the US who oppose contraception and would outlaw it if they could.

RFRA is a bit of a red herring excuse in any event. RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision - Employment Division v Smith - which changed the standard of review for religious free exercise cases.  RFRA re-imposed the older standard - more favorable to free exercise claims - by statute. Even though Smith was decided by Scalia, the ideological positions on this issue have switched and based on the Supreme Court's recent rulings, even if RFRA were overriden, the Court would likely just constitutionalize it by overruling Smith.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There are definitely some Republicans who want to prohibit contraception, I'm not sure many States are religious enough to see it pass a State legislature. My assumption (not backed by research) is that Griswold struck down a number of State laws, and many States--particularly in the South, probably just left it there. I have doubts that in the interim, States like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama etc (aka your hellhole states) have passed laws repealing prior contraception bans from pre-Griswold. When the current Guardian Council we have for a Supreme Court overturns Griswold in the next 2-4 years those old contraception bans would resume the force of law. While it may be the case that even Louisiana and Alabama wouldn't pass a new contraception ban in the 2020s, I'm not actually sure they could or would pass a repeal of an old ban were it to resume effect post-Griswold being overturned.