this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
138 points (99.3% liked)

politics

29654 readers
1914 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on Monday seeking to protect access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Forty-seven Democratic senators and 212 House members urged the high court to overturn the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling reinstating an in-person requirement to obtain mifepristone, which has not been enforced in five years. “The Fifth Circuit’s Order should be stayed because the relief it granted has no basis in law, threatens the congressionally-mandated evidence-based process for drug-regulatory decisions, and poses a serious health risk to pregnant individuals,” Democrats wrote in the brief. “Mifepristone, which patients have used for more than 25 years as part of the most common and recommended regimen for medication abortion, should not be made more difficult to access across the entire country,” they added. It follows a Monday order from Justice Samuel Alito, who briefly halted the ruling that would prevent the abortion pill from being prescribed without an in-person doctor visit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You couldn't have known this, but you're talking to someone who was around for Roe v. Wade back in the 70s: all this is new to a lot of younger folks, but for many of us, it's been established canon for over fifty years.

Not just women, but men too: it wasn't part of our exchange, but birth control and abortion access are two sides of the same coin, and at the time of Roe V. Wade widely available birth control was also fairly new. I wasn't quite old enough to be personally affected, but spent time around many who were rigorously testing the limits of these newly available methods, so it's never been a question for me: letting women control their own fertility is best for everyone, bar none except those wanting to exploit other humans in one way or another.

To me these are all literally the same issue -- can't have widespread exploitation without poors to exploit, and blocking abortion is just the start of ensuring that long, long pipeline of bodies -- but regardless I'm glad to hear you weren't just trolling, and am encouraged that you've given this some thought. Thanks for letting me know.