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

chapotraphouse

13538 readers
796 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

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

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
KenBonesWildRide@hexbear.net
Nakoichi@hexbear.net
itsPina@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
sweet_pecan@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
107
A super-lib explains how the dems couldn't codify Roe for FIFTY fucking years. (hexbear.net)
submitted 9 months 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 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 33 points 9 months 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 9 months 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.