Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling
thehill.com
Hillary Clinton is warning about the legality of birth control in the wake of a decision by the Alabama Supreme Court that found frozen embryos created through fertility treatments are children under state law.
“They came for abortion first. Now it’s [in vitro fertilization], and next it’ll be birth control,” the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee and secretary of State said in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“The extreme right won’t stop trying to exert government control over our most sacred personal decisions until we codify reproductive freedom as a human right,” Clinton added.
You are viewing a single comment
Or when Clinton was President in '92 or when Biden was President in '21. Multiple opportunities, but they all meant staking a position as a party and not being 300 little local independent influencers, trying to soak up as much campaign cash as they can before the next wave year tosses them out.
You need 50 Dem senators willing to overturn the filibuster or 60 in favor of abortion. Unfortunately, we've never had those numbers.
It's much more of a problem that we can't find even 10 Republican senators who are willing to enshrine abortion in some fashion.
Which they have had on repeated occasions.
When?
1993, 2007, 2021...
Hell, Bill Frist offered to blow up the Filibuster with the Nuclear Option back in 2003. A minority of Dems could have simply let him, rather than caving on Judicial nominees.
There were not 50 willing to kill the filibuster in 2021. Manchin and Sinema were against it.
There was never a vote for or against removing the Filibuster. The rules decision was one more sloppy rush job by a mismanaged Senate.
You're presupposing then that if there was a vote, they'd have gotten rid of it
I'm not presupposing anything. I'm observing the failure of the Senate leadership to hold open the vote.
Your argument then is that the Senate could have held a vote to overturn the filibuster, but not that it would necessarily pass. And that would be true for every year and every day, the Senate could have voted on that during every presidential administration.
Right. They failed to hold a vote, which is the first necessary step to winning a vote.
Fair enough I suppose.