President Biden’s reelection campaign is preparing to highlight abortion rights in the lead-up to the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision, CBS News has learned, seeking to tie the upcoming election to a “woman’s right to make her own health care decisions — including the very possible reality of a MAGA Republican-led national abortion ban.”

The extensive plans include ad buys, campaign rallies and events across the U.S. organized in lockstep with the Democratic National Committee, which will launch opinion pieces in local newspapers focusing on statewide abortion bans.

Ahead of the 51st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on Jan. 22, television and digital ads highlighting the personal impact of abortion restrictions will air in swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to a Biden-Harris campaign official.

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    When have Dems had a chance to secure it into law? They need the House and Senate, plus the President. When was the last time they had that by not a 1-2 margin? Because margins that tight are asking for assholes like Manchin or Sinema to make it all about them and there are still moderately conservative democrats.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

      As others said, dem supermajority during Obama’s first term. He campaigned on it, then gave a speech after getting elected saying it wasn’t their highest priority. A few months later Kennedy died and they lost their chance. As an aside, Pelosi should be fucking ashamed for this - but she has no shame.

      Could have pushed hard for it during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency as well, and bullied Manchin/Sinema into going along or losing their seat. But that would mean change, which is the one thing Biden promised he wouldn’t do. And so here we are, another election year, another bullshit campaign promise of something they might do if we elect them again. (Narrator: they won’t do it.)

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

        He campaigned on ACA too and we actually got that. Roe v Wade wasn’t a priority as much since it was codified precedent and we weren’t in a time when judges just overturned precedents willy nilly.

        Were you paying attention during Biden’s term? Those two torpedoed any chance at legislation. And maybe they could have brokered a deal but the cost would have been staggering and the rest of the term shot for getting concessions.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          55 months ago

          Yep we got ACA, Romney’s healthcare plan, but notably without the public option. And guess who immediately gave that concession to repugs, before negotiations had even begun? Genocidin’ Biden.

          Roe was precedent, yes, but most importantly it was not codified by law. “Codified precedent” isn’t a thing. Congress is supposed to make laws, and the courts are supposed to enforce them. Congress dropped the ball to pass this absolute layup in 2008, and then just 15 years later women lost the right to bodily autonomy because of that failure.

          I find it odd the implication that Congress can’t work on more than 1 legislative item at a time, but ok feel free to make that claim for what it’s worth.

          The fact of the matter is this: legislation for this stuff has been drafted and ready to go for decades. It could have been a “day 1 and done” law, as was promised during Obama’s campaign. Dems simply don’t want to do it, so they can do exactly what’s happening in the OP - use Roe as a dangling carrot to coerce voter turnout.

    • Alto
      link
      fedilink
      -9
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Most recently? The supermajority in 2009. The DNC is not your friend. Neolibs are not your friend. They’re simply the least shit option at the moment.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        235 months ago

        Obamas? that he had for like a month? That he used to try to get ACA passed? Because that’s the ONLY one people ever bring up and it’s a facile argument.

        • Alto
          link
          fedilink
          -12
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          If you don’t think they couldn’t have gotten Roe enshrined in law during that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. This is absolutely the type of legislation you have written up in advance for day one to immediately force it through if you have any sort of conscious or morality.

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            72 days. A new congress. A new president. And a MOMENTUS policy change? You’re rewriting history. Especially in 2009 when it was much less supported as a law BECAUSE of Roe V Wade. You’re just looking for reasons to hate the democrats and this tactic of going back to the short supermajority is sad and transparent.

            That was also 15 years ago. Anything before then never would have flown.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              125 months ago

              Definitely. Think about it: people believed that Roe v. Wade was settled law. The Supreme Court said it was. Why would they waste valuable time making that a law?

              Laws take months unless there’s a national emergency, and then all other work is stopped. Literally hundreds of people need to write, read, and decide on the specific wording of the text. It’s like writing a book by committee, for no reason, at the expense of other issues. Abortion doesn’t matter if people don’t have healthcare!

            • Alto
              link
              fedilink
              -10
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              So as I was saying, I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for the low sum of $50,000!

              And trust me, I don’t have to look for reasons to hate the DNC. Them being slightly less shit than the GOP does not make them good. It makes them slightly less shit.

              • katy ✨
                link
                fedilink
                35 months ago

                hmm.

                the gop wants me dead and eradicated from public life.

                the democratic party doesn’t. in fact, they want to improve healthcare, education, working conditions, and immigration.

                you: both are bad

                • Alto
                  link
                  fedilink
                  05 months ago

                  You might want to read what I actually said

                  • katy ✨
                    link
                    fedilink
                    45 months ago

                    And trust me, I don’t have to look for reasons to hate the DNC. Them being slightly less shit than the GOP does not make them good. It makes them slightly less shit.

                    i did. it’s still wrong.

          • katy ✨
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            you do realize that the time period in 2009 when they had about 6 weeks of a supermajority, they had several anti-choice dems who wouldn’t have voted to enshrine roe into law, right??

            like literally i’m BEGGING you to take a high school civics class and learn how the legislative branch works.

        • Uranium3006
          link
          fedilink
          -155 months ago

          so it’s not the democrat’s fault when they don’t do anything even when they literally can, and have been able to several distinct times?

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            English
            185 months ago

            They haven’t been able to do it. Going back to that short supermajority is drawing from a well giving dust. And when else could they have? When would they have had the public’s support before then? People love to make up history to fit their narrative. But it turns out America isn’t that progressive, unfortunately. Not until lately.