this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
277 points (99.6% liked)

politics

18878 readers
3750 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have created a right to access in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and mandated that insurance plans cover the practice, deriding the vote as a political ploy.

Senators voted against advancing the bill, 51-44, marking the second time Democrats have sought to put Republicans on the record on the contentious issue. Sixty votes were needed to open debate on the measure.

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted with every Democrat and independent.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) did not vote. 

GOP senators derided the Democratic legislation, authored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), as nothing more than a show vote, accusing Democrats of misrepresenting Republicans’ views on IVF.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tried to pass via voice vote a competing bill he and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) introduced earlier this year that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats. 

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (7 children)

that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats.

Withholding Medicaid funding doesn't seem like a great idea. But on the whole being against banning IVF seems like a good idea. Am I missing something?

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats.

Withholding Medicaid funding doesn’t seem like a great idea. But on the whole being against banning IVF seems like a good idea. Am I missing something?

Republicans don't want to secure IVF and don't want to pay for Medicaid. GOP state's would happily block IVF to get Medicaid defunded.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

they want to turn their states into shitholes, and a few have succeeded in that. I'm all for the brain drain that'll happen. especially if those funds got diverted to blue states.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm aware of their issues with reproduction e rights. But that's not what that statement says.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But that’s not what that statement says.

I read the OP again. I read your statement again. I'm not seeing a different meaning than the one I came away with and commented on originally.

What are you saying the statement says that my comments contradict?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The statement said withhold Medicaid for states banning IVF. Aka if you ban IVF, the bill would punish the state by withholding Medicaid. Seems to be the opposite of what Republicans want with IVF.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

The statement said withhold Medicaid for states banning IVF. Aka if you ban IVF, the bill would punish the state by withholding Medicaid. Seems to be the opposite of what Republicans want with IVF.

I see your confusion: (many) Republicans want to ban IVF.

Look at the title of this post we're in. "Republicans block Senate Democrats’ IVF bill". That bill protects IVF, and the republicans shot it down.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)