Skip Navigation

politics @lemmy.world

MicroWave @lemmy.world

10mo ago

Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

thehill.com Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

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 und…

Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

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.

politics @lemmy.world

Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

thehill.com /policy/healthcare/4483403-hillary-clinton-warns-birth-control-is-next-after-alabama-ivf-ruling/

Hillary Clinton warns birth control is ‘next’ after Alabama IVF ruling

209 22

You're viewing part of a thread.

169 comments

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.
  
  Your argument then is that the Senate could have held a vote to overturn the filibuster
  Right. They failed to hold a vote, which is the first necessary step to winning a vote.
  
  Fair enough I suppose.

169 comments