The vice president plans to meet with abortion providers and staff members in Minneapolis, a striking political move that shows how assertive Democrats have grown on the issue.

The appearance at a health center will be the latest leg in a nationwide tour by Ms. Harris, who has emerged as the most outspoken defender of abortion rights in the administration. While White House officials say they have largely reached the limits of their power to protect abortion rights, the issue has emerged as a linchpin of their re-election strategy.

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    6·
    9 months ago

    It is not. There is a history of the Democrats including people who are anti-abortion within their tent.

    • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      9 months ago

      I kinda think if they actually cared they would have codified Roe during his free reign no? This feels more like a bargaining chip than anything, same as the random pot seminar.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        4·
        9 months ago

        Broken Senate rules basically require 60% to bring something that isn’t budget-related to a vote.

              • spongebue@lemmy.world
                2·
                9 months ago

                Not practically, especially when plurality takes all and there’s no ranked choice voting system. Say you had a candidate who was 95% perfect for you, another who was at 80%, and another who agreed with 10% of your beliefs. Now let’s say that only the latter two had a realistic shot. When you throw your vote away on someone who never had a chance, rather than the guy who came close and could’ve won, you may as well have voted for the guy you agreed with least.

                Take a look at Hawaii’s special election in 2010. This district should have been a shoo-in for a Democrat running against a Republican. But when two Democrats run against a Republican? Their vote splits and the guy with 40% of the vote wins - even though one of the other two better lined up with 60% of the voters

                Thanks for playing, though.

                • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  13·
                  9 months ago

                  You may vote for the genocidal old man, but I can’t/won’t in good conscience. And the “he’s worse” argument (when I’m not voting for either primary party) is a silly hill to stand on.

                  Either you let them walk all over you, or you vote for a candidate that will implement ranked-choice voting.

                  • spongebue@lemmy.world
                    31·
                    9 months ago

                    President Trump thanks you. At least he should put Netanyahu in his place just like he did Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, and Viktor Orbán

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            1·
            8 months ago

            Because unless most of the populous is going for the same alternative you are, voting for some other party mostly benefits the major party farthest from your views. It’s a consequence of FPTP, which always collapses into a two party system.