this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
107 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13932 readers
800 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Nakoichi@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
sweet_pecan@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
gaystyleJoker@hexbear.net
thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net
context@hexbear.net
Infamousblt@hexbear.net
Sulvy@hexbear.net
107
A super-lib explains how the dems couldn't codify Roe for FIFTY fucking years. (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 year ago by InevitableSwing@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tweet

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they act based on donor approval, or Roe would have been codified long ago.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s plenty of dem donors that are pro-choice though. If anything, I think it’s because abortion access being in a precarious place created a narrative to keep the donations coming in.

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

this it's a useful wedge issue for them to pretend to care about so they can beg for money. As long as it remains in limbo they can keep using it to beat that drum forever.