(Politic) Alabama passes bill to ban abortion completely

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

TheIronRuler:

.
No state-intervention for limits on abortion is already the status-quo in a handful of states. This doesn't mean they allow third-trimester by law, only that they don't have any limits. You rarely preform this kind of thing.

The issue here as I understand it is that state-legislature controlled by democrats in states like NYC and Vermont are flexing on regards of abortion rights, and southern states are flexing back. The issue isn't limiting abortion to 20 or 16 or 13 weeks, I believe it's the availability and accessibility of clinics and doctors that can preform it. This great shortage - or actual unavailability is something some of those southern states have caused, which I believe is a major health-risk for women...

What I find shitty is the political flexing of both parties regarding this. Another polarizing issue both parties can work towards advancing instead of flexing and pandering to their base. It's an issue about women's healthcare, not about 'pro-choice' feminism or 'pro-life' bible-thumping.

The cynical me wonders if this is not done entirely on purpose to derail the campaign. Let's just think about it for one minute. What is one thing both parties actually agree on? That corporate donors need to be pleased. Another thing? Corporate donors tend to care less about these social discussions than their tax bills & industry regulations. So what can these parties do to prevent people like Bernie Sanders and their fight for more fiscal justice to dominate the debate? Talk about socio-cultural issues. Shift the debate from socio-economic issues to gay rights, abortion rights, etc. and you increase the odds that at the end of the primaries you have two candidates willing to serve corporate interests.

generals3:

The cynical me wonders if this is not done entirely on purpose to derail the campaign. Let's just think about it for one minute. What is one thing both parties actually agree on? That corporate donors need to be pleased. Another thing? Corporate donors tend to care less about these social discussions than their tax bills & industry regulations. So what can these parties do to prevent people like Bernie Sanders and their fight for more fiscal justice to dominate the debate? Talk about socio-cultural issues. Shift the debate from socio-economic issues to gay rights, abortion rights, etc. and you increase the odds that at the end of the primaries you have two candidates willing to serve corporate interests.

Absolutely. Keep people looking in the wrong direction, you can get away with one hell of a lot. The more people are obsessing about immigration, abortion and so on, the less they're going to examine and question the distribution and exercise of power and wealth in their country.

However, I don't think it's entirely a cynical ploy - when the further left comprehensively lost the economic argument in the 80s/90s, it necessarily ended with a far more marginal economic difference in the public sphere. And if there's less to argue about, people would move onto other things.

generals3:

TheIronRuler:

.
No state-intervention for limits on abortion is already the status-quo in a handful of states. This doesn't mean they allow third-trimester by law, only that they don't have any limits. You rarely preform this kind of thing.

The issue here as I understand it is that state-legislature controlled by democrats in states like NYC and Vermont are flexing on regards of abortion rights, and southern states are flexing back. The issue isn't limiting abortion to 20 or 16 or 13 weeks, I believe it's the availability and accessibility of clinics and doctors that can preform it. This great shortage - or actual unavailability is something some of those southern states have caused, which I believe is a major health-risk for women...

What I find shitty is the political flexing of both parties regarding this. Another polarizing issue both parties can work towards advancing instead of flexing and pandering to their base. It's an issue about women's healthcare, not about 'pro-choice' feminism or 'pro-life' bible-thumping.

The cynical me wonders if this is not done entirely on purpose to derail the campaign. Let's just think about it for one minute. What is one thing both parties actually agree on? That corporate donors need to be pleased. Another thing? Corporate donors tend to care less about these social discussions than their tax bills & industry regulations. So what can these parties do to prevent people like Bernie Sanders and their fight for more fiscal justice to dominate the debate? Talk about socio-cultural issues. Shift the debate from socio-economic issues to gay rights, abortion rights, etc. and you increase the odds that at the end of the primaries you have two candidates willing to serve corporate interests.

.
It often boils down to the economy. If people are in a good situation they will tolerate a lot of injustices, even rationalize them. I personally take China as a prime example. They're doing pretty well, and arguably much better than the closest comparable country, India.

I don't think there is an unspoken agreement to stoke this flame between the two parties so that less attention is kept on the financial connections the parties have with Oligarchs and foreign governments.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here