[pessimizer]

The parties only have "disputes" on a short list of wedge issues, and either side winning on those removes the that issue as a cudgel that can motivate their base.

If you look at their donors, you'll see the lines. The people who voted for it make money from the defense and intelligence industries, and the people who didn't, don't. Voting for for something majorities of the voters of both parties are against is expensive (in terms of being re-elected.) That price is paid by donors, and the media control that those donors will exercise. Which again, is why the wedge issues are needed: you're going to have to vote for those people who voted against your civil liberties if you want Democrats to pretend to protect abortion rights for another 4 years, or Republicans to pretend to end them.

[Cacti]

I mean, except that many people can’t get either an abortion or IVF. This affects people’s entires lives, it’s not “pretend” unless you are unaffected.

[cool_dude85]

This happened under a Democratic president. And what have they done about it since?

[Cacti]

Pretty sure the GOP controls the House. Do you expect Biden to sit at a desk and sign a bill that can’t pass the House?

[brewdad]

What would you have Biden do about exactly? Pack the Supreme Court? If Roosevelt couldn’t pull that off at the height of his power, there’s no way Biden is making that happen.

[octopoc]

My hot take is that IVF enables infertile couples to propagate their genes, which is bad in an evolutionary sense since it increases the population and decreases the fertility of the gene pool. Another way of putting it is, it increases the odds of people falling in love with someone who is infertile.