Thanks for posting the single article which does not say "France is the first country to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution." It's not. Yugoslavia was. In 1974.
The US could've done the same, and yet...
You know what? It's BECAUSE of the US that we, French, have this now.
The US has become a cautionary tale for:
• Refusing Universal Healthcare
• Opposing Racial and Cultural Equity
• Revoking Women’s Bodily Autonomy
• Expanding Excessive Incarceration
• Exonerating Police Violence
• Dismissing Effective Gun Control
• Ignoring Mass Shootings
• Denying Veteran and First Responder Care
• Allowing Environmental Toxins
• Approving Carcinogens in Food
• Condoning High Infant Mortality
• Eradicating LGTBQ+ Rights
• Encouraging Religion in Government
• Dismantling Social Services
• Rejecting Living Wage, Retirement, and Pension Issues
• Persecuting the Low-income and Homeless
• Promoting the Purchase of Politicians and Judges
Every story needs a villain.
...Are we the baddies?
Yes you are FilthyHookerSpit.
You're welcome
How? No way 75% of the states would agree.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
How? No way 75% of the states would agree.
By electing sane politicians and not a bunch of weak populists who bend for the loudest rightwingnuts...
Just gotta have another civil war of course. EZ.
And that’s one of the major problems with America.
When Dems had the supermajority during the first part of Obama’s term, Roe could have easily been codified into law. They slept on this at the time, saying there were “other priorities.”
So, while this doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to become the law of the land, with how incredibly dysfunctional Congress has become, it may be the case that Article V conventions are the only way to change the laws to suit the needs of the public over the desires of the elites.
How old are you? That's was a very different demographic of democratic senators you were looking at back then.
In 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition, also known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, was a caucus of moderate members from the Democratic Party in the United States. The Blue Dogs were characterized by their moderate to conservative views within the Democratic Party[1]. During that time, the Blue Dogs played a significant role in shaping policy and negotiations within the Democratic Party.
The Blue Dog Coalition peaked at 54 members in 2009 when Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives[3]. These members were influential in various policy discussions and were known for their moderate stance on many issues.
Some notable Blue Dog Democratic senators during that period included individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who expressed optimism about reaching agreements on important issues like healthcare reform with a majority of the more than 50 Blue Dogs[5]. The Blue Dogs were recognized for their willingness to work across party lines and find bipartisan solutions to key legislative matters.
Citations: [1] Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition [2] The Blue Dogs bark - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/the-blue-dogs-bark-018434 [3] What the Decline of Blue Dog Democrats Tells Us About ... https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2017/12/what-the-decline-of-blue-dog-democrats-tells-us-about-american-politics/548813/ [4] List of members of the Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Blue_Dog_Coalition [5] Conservative Democrats Expect a Health Deal - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/politics/02bluedogs.html
Hello friend. I’m old enough to recognize that the corporatist blue dog Dems are the same corporatists running the DNC now. The very same conservative neoliberals who refuse to deliver on any meaningful social reform that our people desperately need, because their donors don’t want them to. But, I’m young enough to still believe we can find a way to change that rigged system to instead represent us.
their other priorities were arguing back and forth for months watering down a republican-written healthcare reform bill for the supposed benefit of republicans who still didn't vote for it.
precisely
"Other priorities": if men needed abortion they would be able to get them at a fast-food drive through while they are waiting for their order
To add an amendment to the US Constitution, it needs a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.
L O L O L
And yet. There was absolutely no way the US had the huge support needed to change its constitution.
66% approval from 66% of states I think. Atm the us could not get that many to agree on anything. Including a right to air.
What? Where were they anywhere close to that?
Yeah, well, we put "You can't be president if you lead an insurrection" into our constitution, so I just hope France holds the line better than the US did.
Keep in mind that it's not the right to abortion that has been added to the constitution. It's the freedom to abort for women. Massive difference. It doesn't guarantee access to abortion, it says nothing about the delay to get an abortion and it leaves out trans men. Still a victory, but with pretty big nuances.
Constitutionally, it means that they're to be given the freedom to abort. Which means that if it's their choice, the state has to provide the means. Interestingly, it also means that a doctor claiming exemption because it's legally allowed c1n fuck off because the constitution is the first law.
(So, yeah, what you said but backwards)
This is not true, a doctor still has the right to refuse to perform an abortion but has the obligation to redirect to another practitioner who would perform it. Just like today
Right and freedom are similar. Even the conseil ~~constitutionnel~~ d'Etat confirmed it. So no, it's not a massive difference but a trick added by a senator to delay and create doubt on the law. https://piaille.fr/@malauss/112045942102612011
News about France and most of the comments are Americans complaining xD
France become the first country to explicitly include the right to terminate a pregnancy in its constitution.
No, Yugoslavia did it in the 70s.
China has had affordable, over-the-counter abortion pills since the 1970s. Kind of wild when you hear stories of people in the west who aren't guaranteed this, and haveto argue back-and-forth with their doctor and insurance on justifying it and getting it covered.
But not all support it, with the Vatican repeating its opposition to abortion. "There can be no 'right' to take a human life," the Vatican institution said in a statement, echoing concerns already raised by French Catholic bishops. It appealed to "all governments and all religious traditions to do their best so that, in this phase of history, the protection of life becomes an absolute priority".
!CW Wrote in a bit of angst.
Raping kids on the other hand, is mandated by God.
“There can be no ‘right’ to take a human life,”
Wasn't so long ago that the Vatican had a very different take on that, or maybe it's different after said "life" leaves the womb?
France masterfully trolling Third World countries.
And retroactive...
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Abortion has been legal in France since 1975, but polls show around 85% of the public supported amending the constitution to protect the right to end a pregnancy.
Before the vote, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told parliament that the right to abortion remained "in danger" and "at the mercy of decision makers".
While resistance from right-wingers in parliament failed to materialise, President Macron has been accused of using the constitution for electoral ends.
In a 2001 ruling, the council based its approval of abortion on the notion of liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is technically part of the constitution.
And so nothing authorised us to think that France was exempt from this risk," said Laura Slimani, from the Fondation des Femmes rights group.
"There can be no 'right' to take a human life," the Vatican institution said in a statement, echoing concerns already raised by French Catholic bishops.
The original article contains 515 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Great....we Americans will now be required to have a special travel visa that requires a pregnancy test... pregnant? No travel for you! Specially France!
Thanks Republicans! So smart! Like a really smooth rock!
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc