“It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Biden's deputy campaign manager said.

…

“The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Fulks said.

Biden has been poised to run on what has been described as the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate as he and his allies look to notch a victory in the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Last month, Biden seized on a case in Texas, where a woman, Kate Cox, was denied an abortion despite the risk to her life posed by her pregnancy.

“No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said of the case. “But that is exactly what happened in Texas thanks to Republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. This should never happen in America, period.”

  • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    9·
    11 months ago

    You should look into what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution. Barring civil war, aliens landing on the whitehouse lawn, or similar galvanizing incident, I’m doubtful the US will be unified enough to be capable of passing an amendment to the constitution on ANY topic for ANY purpose during the lifetime of anyone reading this comment, and I’m doubtful we could have done so within at least the past 20 years.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      4·
      11 months ago

      To add to that, even amendments that only affect the overall structure of government, with no particular favor to any political party, are almost impossible to pass. For example, the last amendment ratified was the 27th, and all it did was prevent Congress from passing its own salary increase and having it take affect before the next election. Simple nuts and bolts stuff. It was proposed in 1789 and wasn’t ratified until 1992.

      For an abortion amendment that would be so obviously divisive? Forget it. Waste of everyone’s time.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        Yeah the fucking ERA failed.

        I do think there’s a chance for an explicit right to privacy as an amendment but it needs to be really campaigned on as it’d give the democrats most of what they want socially

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        1·
        11 months ago

        Don’t forget that when an amendment does get ratified, you’ve got to really nail it or else people will still be fighting over the verbiage.

        You’d think “keep it simple stupid” would suffice, but look at how we interpret this:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        IANAL, but I see a few things as I read it:

        • Militias must be well regulated. I agree.
        • Militias are necessary to the security of a free state. Sounds a bit dated but I don’t disagree.
        • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ok…so…is that “the right” can’t be infringed, or “the arms” can’t be infringed? Who are the people, and are they separate from the well-regulated militia? Because you can have a right to bear arms, but still limit what arms are available for civilian use. Non civilian use would be either military or para-military, the latter would be a militia, which ipso facto must be well-regulated, and as such there must be restrictions on arms because how are you going to regulate a militia if not its armaments? It’s not well-regulated if it’s a free-for-all. This is law. There are rules.

        Should I be able to buy a nuke? An ICBM? A tank? Live grenades? Where is the line drawn? When does it transition from “civilian hunting and defense” to “military fetishism” to “para-military/militia” to “military”. Because it must be somewhere. And I feel like there’s one group of those four that’s really being a stick in the mud over it.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          United States v. Miller did interpret the Second Amendment along those lines. It was a challenge against the NFA’s ban on short barreled shotguns. Ruling was that because a short barreled shotgun isn’t something a militia would use, the government could ban it.

          That leads to an interpretation nobody likes. You can ban short barreled shotguns, but not stuff a militia would use. Stuff like fully automatic weapons or rocket propelled grenades.