345
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by ArchRecord@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

HRC Article:

WASHINGTON — Last night, President Biden signed the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, which includes a provision inserted by Speaker Mike Johnson blocking healthcare for the transgender children of military servicemembers. This provision, the first anti-LGBTQ+ federal law enacted since the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will rip medically necessary care from the transgender children of thousands of military families – families who make incredible sacrifices in defense of the country each and every day. The last anti-LGBTQ+ federal law that explicitly targeted military servicemembers was Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which went into effect in 1994.

Biden's press release:

No service member should have to decide between their family’s health care access and their call to serve our Nation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 18 hours ago

Oh no, a protest followed shortly thereafter by a bill that passes presidential veto. And that the Republicans have the power to do whatever they want in January is exactly why this should have been vetoed. They can do whatever evils they want, but at least then it's on them rather than further eroding the idea that Democrats will stick up for their constituent minority groups.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago

I didn't say the protest was bad, just answering your question about hypothetical outcomes.

I don't really follow your logic about vetoing this now because of the changing congress, you're saying not passing the bipartisan bill and waiting for a more conservative bill that harms more people would be your ideal?

So you're just a Republican?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

The "bipartisan bill" doesn't protect us on anything. There's nothing stopping them from passing any measure we avoided by accepting the "imperfect" bill, so they don't need to surrender to Republican priorities when they only control 1/3rd of the current legislative process. They're going to do the "more harms" regardless of what Democrats do here. Nothing has been averted with this complicity.

Plus my expectation is that a vetoed NDAA doesn't result in a month with no NDAA until the new Congress. It's a "must pass" bill. Cancel recess.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Oh, actually, this is after they talked down a ton of other Republican amendments including stripping reproductive care, denying refugees, banning CRT in military academies, etc.

But hey, the "must pass" part gives Biden the authority to sign it without Republican approval, because Republicans could actually try to drag it out to add in all of their amendments like they have been doing for many months, it doesn't literally force the congress to pass something before the time limit because there are no consequences for not doing so aside from the military going unfunded: which Republicans have demonstrated they would absolutely do.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 10 hours ago

Oh ok, they got some of the terrible stuff out, I guess good job, call it a day! /s

WTF is wrong with you people. He doesn't need to be a king to not just roll over and accept their poison pills. "They're crazy, they'll do anything" is clearly wrong, as they back down from government shutdowns all the time. It's just a convenient excuse for people like you that, despite failure after failure after failure, think the Democrats are always on the top of their game and just lost because there were no other options.

And if Republicans refuse to write a "clean" bill... OK. If Congress can't get it together to pass something that is acceptable that just funds the military (a thing the Republicans desperately care about), then it's the same blame game that occurs every time a shutdown is imminent. A game the Republicans usually lose.

He passed the bill not because he had too, but because he didn't care enough not to. It's the same lack of courage and triangulating that plays out time and again with centrists and civil rights for minorities. In 20 years we'll all look back at the 2020s centrist triangulation and see it as shameful while the centrists will have moved on to throwing a new vulnerable group under the bus for just not being practical to defend while they don't even try to.

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
345 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2779 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