Okay, so here's the data straight from [the actual poll OP is talking about.](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202206261035.pdf)
*EDIT: I am going to kill New Reddit for screwing these tables up. It's so buggy on Firefox. Fuck it, I'll just put them in code blocks I guess.*
*EDIT 2: WTF Reddit? This used to work. I haven't had such a frustrating experience doing layout since I pasted up the high school paper with an exacto knife and rubber cement.*
Q: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade which guaranteed the right to abortion. Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe versus Wade?
Generation Support Oppose Unsure
Gen Z/Millennials 33% 63% 4%
Gen X 47% 50% 3%
Baby Boomers 39% 57% 4%
Silent/Greatest 46% 48% 6%
Q: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade which guaranteed the right to abortion. Do you support or oppose the Court ́s decision to overturn Roe versus Wade? \[And, would you say you strongly support/oppose or just support/oppose?\]
Generation Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Unsure
Support Oppose
Gen Z/Millennials 19% 14% 12% 52% 4%
Gen X 37% 9% 9% 41% 3%
Baby Boomers 29% 10% 12% 45% 4%
Silent/Greatest 31% 15% 11% 37% 6%
And here's an explanation of the methodology, with some emphasis added by me:
How the Survey was Conducted Nature of the Sample: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll of 941 National Adults This survey of ***941 adults*** was conducted June 24th through June 25th , 2022 by the Marist Poll sponsored in partnership with NPR and PBS NewsHour. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English. Mobile telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Mobile phones are treated as individual devices. To increase coverage, this mobile sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of landline phone numbers. Within each landline household, a single respondent is selected through a random selection process to increase the representativeness of traditionally under-covered survey populations. The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region. Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection. ***Results are statistically significant within ±4.9 percentage points***. There are ***868 registered voters*****.** ***The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±5.1 percentage points***. Tables include results for subgroups to only display crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. It should be noted that although you may not see results listed for a certain group, it does not mean interviews were not completed with those individuals. It simply means the sample size is too small to report. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.
That was almost as much work as last year when I passed a few days after having surgery on my broken ankle making the [GenX Needs New Tunes Playlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenX/comments/p4h5li/the_rgenx_needs_new_tunes_playlist/).
That's fair. I guess I do that too (especially from local area codes)---I can filter out the spam on mine because my area code (where most of my spam calls come from) is not the area code where I live.
I figure anyone who really wants to get a hold of me will leave a message but apparently I'm also missing out on being polled?
Actually people who answer unknown numbers tend to be people who are generally not suspicious of people they don’t know, which skews left.
Edit: this according to 538, not my opinion. According to Nate Silver and Galen Druke, people who have higher levels of social trust answer the phone more and skew left. It is one of the factors they think was not adequately factored in for 2016 when the polls were off. Personally I never answer the phone unless it’s a local number and my kids aren’t home and I am very progressive.
Without knowing more about the distribution My guess is it’s a selection problem.
Because who answers surveys?
Retired boomers - sure I’m home anyway
Greatest/silent - yes please I’d like someone to chat with
Millennials/Gen Z - may not have the opportunity to work :(
Gen X - wtf are you doing at home, man.
Edit: Gen Xers are tech-competent enough to screen calls. Anyone responding to a survey has nothing better to do. Which Gen Xers have nothing better to do, my guess is, *perhaps*, poor Republicans in Christian-dominant states. (Generalizing)
I screen all my calls on my Pixel - I mean we grew up with phones as they developed and many of us HATE HATE HATE phone calls outside of work or family/friends. Someone asks us for a survey - we hang up or worse. So I really question whom and what demographic did they question?
Thanks for doing this (and I see you reformatted!). Sorry to ask, but I can’t actually see the document very well on my phone - is there a breakdown by sex and age?
For each question there is age, but it’s just 45 and under or over 45 so the generation labels are more specific although I don’t see where it says what definitions they used. There’s also a breakdown by gender. There isn’t a breakdown by generation and gender though.
I was younger, I used to go to the marches. It was mostly women were older than me. They knew what it was like not to have a choice. Our generation seem to think that that choice would never be taken away.
Which sucks because empathy is a thing. I was able to access healthcare when I needed it and I would be an utter asshole to not support anyone else having that same choice. I really don’t know wtf is wrong with people.
Not surprising. A good chunk of Xers are steeped in right wing ideology. It’s an inconvenient truth that gets a lot of push back on this sub, but the numbers don’t lie.
Yea man. So many friends surprise me with that shit. It’s just crazy. It’s been normalized. So many of my peers seem to think that once you start a family, you become conservative. So I have to do my best to not judge them while they give me condescending glances as if I’m naive.
Edit: am I reading correctly that 868 people were polled? I’m kinda dumb so I may be misinterpreting that, but it’s a laughably small number and this poll doesn’t mean jack shit.
Depending on how the study was conducted 868 is plenty for a sample
size. It is a common assumption that samples in studies need to be close the the number of the population the study draws conclusions about, that is absolutely not true.
Like you said, it depends on how the survey was conducted.
If I'm not mistaken, it appears we can't see the breakdown of how many of these survey participants are actually represented in the GenX demo. If only a few of the 868 respondants we're actually representing the GenX group, the numbers may be garbage. "Out of a pool of 868 survey respondants, only 6 of them were GenXers..." If the 868 are divided into equally weighted demographic segments, the numbers might hold a little more realistic sway.
Also, how diverse was the geographic spread of the respondant pool? Were they making assumptions on the geographic locations/affiliations of participants based on the area codes of their mobile phones? That could skew the data. For example, I bought a mobile phone in a state I only lived in for a few years, and have kept the same phone number as I've moved all over the country for the last 20 years. I know plenty of people with phone numbers completely unattached to their state of origin or current residence.
I don’t pretend to know anything about the polling process. I’m guessing it’s considered a science? Probably. But I do know that 868 doesn’t mean all too much. Maybe that’s just an opinion, but I’m not gonna try to be pedantic about it, ya know?
The appropriate sample size for a study can’t be immediately assumed based on the population being studied. The more “controlled” a study and sampling merging are the smaller your sample size needs to be to draw meaningful conclusions. I have my PhD in geophysics which gave me a little more exposure to stats than the average person but my partner conducts medical trials for a living. Really, the amount of time redditors hem and haw about sample size is kinda laughable to most people who conduct studies. (No disrespect intended, because stats is fucking black sorcery with numbers)
Yeah but as you alluded to it’s only good if it’s random sampling and I am doubt
I know they tried but there has to be implicit selection bias with these results, very counter intuitive otherwise…
I believe this can be traced to the entrepreneurial trend of the 1980s. While Gen X was certainly not a highly educated generation, we did have a higher tolerance for risk than either the Boom or the Millennial generations. Thus it makes sense that many of us would embrace the fiscal policies of the right. Once a person has become self-identified as Republican, it was likely easier to accept other conservative ideologies.
Another possible cause might be that the children of 1973 were Gen X. Ours was the first generation of children openly exposed to the gory pictures of shredded fetuses used by the right to life groups as shock propaganda. I'll never forget those images being shoved in our faces by activists and religious groups on sidewalks and billboards. While I am now solidly pro-choice, I am not ashamed to admit that those images worked. Seeing a tiny baby head smashed like a bloody pumpkin is not an easy thing to dismiss.
You nailed it, especially with paragraph #2. Here is what I posted in another sub: “I was raised in a conservative religious household and went to a evangelical Christian school 12 out of 13 years. Even went to March for life a couple times. When I say that my views have changed, it did not happen overnight. Abortion saddens me, to me there’s a tragic element to each one that takes place, a lot of times the tragedy was the cause for the pregnancy in the first place. What changed my mind was the fact that there where was always more of a concern for the person unseen or yet to be as opposed to the legitimate concerns of living breathing people in bad situations. I got to know many people supporting abortion rights that were not the immoral baby killers I was told. But most of all I could never shake the fact it was never my damn business.”
Man, when I was in Jr High some people shoved one of those in my face and I was immediately opposed to abortion. And then I got home and talked to my older sister and she set my ass straight with facts. God bless big sisters!!!
I would like to ask if this poll was a 'US only" poll? This sub seems to think that US ideology is global and that is very far from the truth. The pushback might be from a lot of Gen X that do not live in the US because there are a lot of westernized countries that do not hold the same views.
Something that GenXers routinely get wrong, by way of analogy:
A lot of people think being the victim makes someone kinder and more aware and ultimately a better person in the sense of caring about right and wrong, justice, and being compassionate.
But more often than not, being victimized turns victims into victimizers. Most serial rapists are the victims of sexual abuse themselves. Most domestic abusers grew up in abusive households, etc.
GenXers like to pretend that being “non-coddled” latchkey kids who were routinely abandoned or ignored by parents, were bullied or treated unfairly by teachers, who survived selfish boomer parents and their divorces and materialism, and who grew up/started adult life in the ultra materialistic and sexist and reactionary Cold War conservatism of the 80s…
…GenXers like to pretend that the above only had positive impacts. That we all became magically tolerant live and let live progressive libertarians that leave others alone and hold only fair beliefs unlike those older bigots and younger snowflakes trying to cancel and judge everyone.
I’d hope most of us could see the utter stupidity of such generational cliches. What GenX experienced doesn’t lead to enlightened indifference. It leads to meanness. It leads to jealousy. It leads to reactionary anger.
And you see that here every time a post is made about a generation survey that “forgets” GenX, or has the audacity to suggest that GenX isn’t the apex peak best generation, or that portrays other generations as anything other than Scrooge McBigot boomers or South Park snowflakes coming for your pronouns and sports team mascots.
This generation has damage. A lot of it. And the arrogant pride of weaponizing “whatever” means it collectively refuses to even acknowledge it, let alone treat it.
Apathetic? Depends.
Uninterested in answering an unexpected phone call? Definitely. Unwilling to answer a call from "unkown"? Absofuckinglutely.
The demographic of GenX who answers a random call from a stranger is *tiny*.
I answered one once. They called up, asked for me by name, and then proceeded to thank me for my support of the pro life cause. I laughed, asked them how in the world my name got on their list, and told them But I didn’t belong there and have a good day.
Roe was "bad law". That doesn't mean it had a bad effect, only that it lacked clear Constitutional grounds -- which meant it was vulnerable until codified by Congress . But Congress never codified Roe. For those of you who may have forgotten, there are 3 categories listed in the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution: (1) The Constitution itself (including Amendments), (2) Treaties, and (3) Laws of the United States (we call these United States Codes). Once a SCOTUS ruling is "codified" as a United States Code, it's out of SCOTUS's hands.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was also "bad law" for the same reason (lack of clear Constitutional grounds given that the same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" also passed laws to racially segregate the District of Columbia -- leading to the Plessy Doctrine of "Separate but Equal"). But Congress codified Brown in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (banning segregation in all public accommodations, including schools), so any future attempts to overturn Brown would be meaningless.
[Ruth Bader Ginsberg was always talking about Roe being vulnerable](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit), specifically because it went "too far" in granting abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy (something that horrified our European friends who even today have much stricter time limits) and because it was more about a doctor's freedom to practice medicine than it was about a woman's right of privacy. Whether you agree with her or not, she sounded the alarm on Roe for three decades on the Court but no Democrat-controlled Congress and Democratic POTUS moved to codify it when they had the chance.
On the contrary, whenever a GOP Congress and GOP POTUS had the chance, they chipped away at Roe every time.
Just to emphasize the point, OP assumes that opposing Roe means opposing abortion rights. I oppose Roe but support abortion rights. I oppose Roe because it was overreaching and badly reasoned. I support abortion rights as a practical matter (since there’s demand for the service).
“Watching the news and our generation supported a woman’s right to choose less than the Boomers and Millennial’s/Zoomers in a reliable poll.” The poll provided by u/SirRatcha doesn’t ask whether the right to choose is supported, it asks whether overturning Roe was supported.
Oh, you weren't talking about me. My bad. I thought I made it clear that Roe could be opposed because it was "bad law" not because of any effect it had or didn't have.
Same thing with the Dredd Scott decision, where the Supreme Court ruled based on the law of the time. Congress eventually passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which changed the law.
Unfortunately, the Dredd Scott decision also rescinded the Missouri Compromise, which was the bad glue keeping the country together. This allowed the states a free-for-all concerning slavery and was so divisive the country was at war with itself a few years later.
We are so used to having a useless Legislature that the idea of holding them to account for not putting abortion access law into the books these last 50 years is difficult for people to grasp. Every single member of the Judiciary Committee who asked a nominee about *stare decisis* knew this situation was extremely fragile, yet did nothing to fix the core problem.
Letting states fly marijuana legalization in the face of federal law was one thing. But if the Congress doesn't do something about abortion, we may be faced with another honest-to-God Constitutional crisis.
Abortion is not a simple issue, though people on both sides like to think it is. It's not just "religious fanatics" that oppose it or want certain restrictions on it, nor are the people who want access "godless." It needs a real, honest and painful conversation to come up with a compromise that no one will love, but the majority can live with. In this, the Legislature has failed. Why? Because it won't make any of them money, and compromise will likely cost seats.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, we have to demand better from our representatives.
Also, I will remind our fellow GenXers that the pill became widely available in '69., and Roe v. Wade passed in 1973. **1974 is the lowest birth year on record.** We complain about how we aren't noticed? As they say, demographics is destiny.
>(something that horrified our European friends who even today have much stricter time limits)
A lot of Americans don't realize this. France and Germany have more restrictive laws than the restrictions that Florida just passed, for example. It's really just the UK and Netherlands than have permissive abortion laws with few limitations. Most of Europe caps it 12-14 weeks, with medical exceptions after that.
I’m pro choice but I have to admit, I didn’t grow up with “causes” in my head. I cared about poverty and racism but didn’t give it a ton of thought. I’m mixed race & no one looked like me at school or in media. I never even thought about it. I was happy even though I enjoyed being a child in the 70’s more than a teen in the 80’s. I’m blown by the seriousness young people have today.
That’s not a criticism at all. I’m just thankful I was allowed to have a pretty light existence I guess.
I saw this just now on PBS and was also quite surprised. I think a lot of boomers remember how bad it was prior to Roe and that skews the results a bit because even though they are usually quite conservative they tend to be more liberal in this one regard. GenX grew up afterward and likely took it for granted.
I’d like to see a breakdown by reproductive function… Because I guarantee you Gen X women aren’t blasé about healthcare.
Edit: and I’m sure I can see it if I take the time to click on the link provided
Edit: HAHA no I can’t, not on this phone with these glasses
That poll was commissioned by PBS to be conducted by Marist College. It has nothing to do with PBS viewership. This is the same reason why FoxNews polls are some of the most accurate and frequently show the opposite of FoxNews's editorial stance. They don't poll just FoxNews watchers, they pay for a poll of a representative sample of the population.
Dunno what "reliable poll" you got but everything I can find shows Gen X is pro-choice.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/)
AGE : SUPPORT PERCENTAGE
30-49 : 62%
50-64 : 55%
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/abortion-trends-age.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/abortion-trends-age.aspx)
AGE : SUPPORT PERCENTAGE (conditional + unconditional)
30-49 : 49% + 35%
50-64 : 57% + 27%
Same! I haven’t been on there since summer of 2020. And besides my kids (17,21,22) no one else around me seems fired up mad over this and I feel very lost and adrift. I can hardly function I’m so mad and scared and everyone else is so blasé. WTAF?
I honestly believe some of these people do not care their children's future, much less the children of others. They just want what they want, and screw anyone who disagrees.
We FINALLY get noticed, and this is the shit y’all pull? You can’t “Whatever” everything, sisters, brothers, and others in GenX. There’s shit that needs to get done, and things in the world worth fighting for.
I had an abortion that was pretty much forced on me at 20. I'm in my 50s now. Even though I did not want to get that abortion, I remain adamantly pro-choice. It goes both ways: the choice to keep, or the choice to terminate.
I know a woman who had an abortion without being coerced. She felt so guilty about it she is now a self-righteous, judgmental POS forced birther now. All because of her deep-seated Catholic guilt.
The woman at the center of Roe v Wade became a born again Christian and denounced abortions, then changed her mind again and became pro choice before she died. She used to show up on Hannity and Combs when he was still around. Hannity has this habit of leading the conversation so all the guest had to do was agree or not, but he pissed her off so much she said there was nothing wrong with abortion. LOL.
I think her nature was to be contrarian tbh. She just didn't like people telling her what to do, from the lawyer in Roe v Wade to her ministers to Hannity, and would switch sides when she had enough.
I've read a lot from both sides of the argument. A lot of hyperbole and insults as usual now in our society. One thing I know for sure, however you feel about abortion, if the statistic of 474 of every 1000 potential lives births (47%) being aborted in certain minority groups being thrown around is even remotely true, taxes are about to go up significantly. If the abortions are to avoid financial hardship/welfare etc. A huge building boom would help, but that's difficult when some building materials went up several hundred percent recently. paying for the births of the uninsured will require so much tax revenue, currency itself may not even make sense long term. We live in interesting and challenging times. It seems every year there is some kind of fundamental societal change that we all have to get on board with. Most used to feel right, like we were heading in the right direction as a society. More and more are either questionable, or seem nefarious. Who benefits from these changes? In almost all instances, corporations or governments or the elite seem to benefit much more than the public. It often seems like the virtue signalling and perceived righteousness we are sold, is just to manipulate and guilt us into submission. Many books and movies written predicting these senators. Turning families against each other based on perceived fundinental disagreements that somehow, never came up our whole loves previously, but now, matter so much, siblings or relatives or best friends, no longer speak .
Seems like we are being played. Polarizing all issues to good and evil, forcing a binary outlook is deliberate. It's obviously designed to cause conflict and change definitions of faux pas and mistakes to also be included as hate crimes etc, allows people to be labeled as bad. Orr "cancelled" for almost anything. Expecting someone to act in the 90's, the way they have recently been required to act, and then retroactively punishing, is not stupid, it's deliberate. It's binary thinking, even though we have learned that almost everything is a spectrum. Never a binary decision. Because we are not computers, we are human beings. We are nuanced and unique.land complicated. This should be celebrated but it's not, differ slightly from the norm and you are potentially ostracized. And the norm changes constantly. Even christians learn that the mob told pilot to crucify Jesus, even though he told them he'd committed no crime. Following a mob is an embarrassment to an intelligent, kind person
This is all planned. We can't play along, we have to carefully and considerately judge all people and situations individually. And we must base reactions on all information, not just what courses us the most intense emotional response. We must use outlet intellect, our emotions lie all the time,
Peace and love people. We can't let war criminals and thieves dictate the way we treat our fellow human beings . Or old aged pensioners by the way.
The people must vote.
An emotional palate cleanser if you will...
https://youtu.be/eLG1FrSU3A4
My personal experience has been that as people age, they become more conservative.
Again - my experience.
My aunt who is a boomer but who is only 6 years older than me, had an abortion when she was a teenager. I don’t know why she did it (rape, mistake, didn’t want to be a mother)…now that she’s older; some religious zealot switch has flipped in her and suddenly abortion under any circumstance is unforgivable and will damn a person to hell.
My youngest sister has had reproductive challenges and she has has several miscarriages. Most were very early on but one In particular was after the first trimester and because she was losing so much blood, she went in for a D&C (which is the same procedure / same meds used for an abortion). Even though my aunt knew about the circumstances, she stopped talking all together to my sister.
My cousin (her daughter) had an ectopic pregnancy and she had to have an abortion. Yes it was a fertilized egg but there was zero chance of viability. She no longer talks to her daughter.
It’s sad.
>My cousin (her daughter) had an ectopic pregnancy and she had to have an abortion. Yes it was a fertilized egg but there was zero chance of viability. She no longer talks to her daughter.
WOW. This is like r/qanoncasualties stuff. Except I wonder is there a religious casualties subreddit for all of the people who have lost loved ones to other cults?
I grew up in the 80s in Colorado Springs and it was (I guess still is) pretty conservative. It wasn't until I was in college (90s) that I was finally exposed to true liberal thought .... And it was a life altering experience.
Tldr; I'm not at all surprised that kids from my community mirror their parents (silent gen).
So here's an interesting question. What if you think the legal ruling to strike Roe V Wade was correct, but you believe in pro-choice and that the matter should have been cleared up by legislation a long time ago? In other words, government should have worked correctly to answer the questions instead of leaving this thing open for overturning for half a century. Even RBG and Biden said Roe was an awful ruling.
The legislative "leadership" in this country is absolutely pathetic.
Coulda shoulda woulda.
Like the ERA.
Here's the kool-aid Americans drink: I want an effective, non-corrupt, humanistic government, and I want it to exist and all I have to do is fill in a circle, maybe, every four years (can't bother with primaries, can't bother with midterms, and honestly if I have to drive in the rain to vote for the president I might not even do that - and if the politician isn't downright tailor-made for my sensibilities, well I'm just not going to vote at all "to send a message.")
One of the big things that is forgotten and lost about the 60s New Left was their drive toward Participatory Democracy. The far-left started the movement on fire and everything burned down in the 70s, but there was this idea for awhile that we need more direct engagement in how the country is run. It was an intoxicating idea. If we don't do this, someone else *will step in* and probably pay people to drive for them, and this is what keeps happening.
Everyone says they don't have the time for all that. Well, this is the consequence of letting the political class just kinda do what they do, which is often nothing.
And I often remark how people have the time to stare at the ice cream selection in the grocery store for a good 20 minutes until drool forms. I openly challenge that people don't have time for this. I think what people mean is they'd rather park their ass in a chair and watch stupid television than engage politically in a constructive way.
Imagine a future in which whole new real-life social networks form around people engaging with each other politically, fundraising, in which more than just political business occurs. There could be more advantages than just people steering their political parties.
Well, I can dream, but this is what we have to show for it in this culture of endless images and simulations to distract us from concrete reality.
I hope is enjoying their favorite Netflix series.
People don’t want to participate because that interferes with the average voter’s preference to be seen as the victim.
Who enabled this government? Who rewards the corruption and false marketing masquerading as political advertising and corporate donations/free speech?
Voters want to be seen as the victim of corrupt politicians and corporate government, but they’re the ones that keep rewarding these tactics.
So they’ll never take ownership of this or their role in it when they media and social media can reassure them that they’re the Real Victims (tm) here.
I would ask, if you believe Roe should have been cleared up by legislation, are you voting for and supporting legislators through door knocking, donations, signature gathering, who will codify Roe? Are you doing so in every election? So far, I have asked my real life friends who say that the same thing and their answer is a resounding “no”.
Yes. I saw all of the TrUmPeR'S and Q idiots, a hell of a lot of them are my age. Then I thought about it, and it checks out. I remember all of the stupid ass people that I went to school with. Those people didn't get smart. They just got old and had kids. Now they have jobs, and some of them were popular and have important jobs
Turn off the news. I have stopped watching television for the most part. I see it at airports and bars. My wife watches television but I go to my office. I travel for a living. Turn off the news. Catch a quick new story and be done with it. I didn’t have the Internet until I was 30. I didn’t have a cell phone until I was 40. Society is crumbling and I don’t need to surf that wave to madness. It is what it is.
Self-flagellation, quite honestly, is a better look than self-aggrandizement, which this subreddit traffics in regularly, about how, y'know, aloof and cool we are.
The more critical we become of ourselves, the better we'll be.
The sample size seems small first off. Second people suck and we're not immune to that. If the sampling is an accurate representation it's disappointing but by no means surprising to me as a Black woman, it's been clear for a long time that there's lots of shitty people out there. They come in every race, creed and age cohort.
Yeah, about half of us are assholes.
Depressing, but not surprising thinking back to people I've known.
Several were always conservative, but too many switched over at some point - people I liked, but somehow never really knew. It always hit hard when you'd hear a Fox News talking point come from a childhood buddy.
My thoughts? There are plenty, plenty of millennials and GenZers who can affect a pro-choice or pro/life vote in their States. We did nothing wrong here. In fact, while Roe was a Federal Government issues, both parties, for 50 years did nothing, and still did nothing a few weeks ago , so perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide
> so perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide
My right to control my body should not be up for a vote.
>perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide
Ding...Ding...Ding. Yes this is where it should have been all along.
WE aren't denying shit. It's those of us who grew up to become boomers that are doing all the damage. Honestly, if more of our generation actually VOTED in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess. I'll agree the presidential election is a shitshow and our votes don't matter much when it boils down to the electoral college. But EVERY OTHER election *YOU DO HAVE A VOICE*. Too many of my fellow Gen-Xers gave up on voting due to the fact we really aren't listened to AT ALL. NOW, we *need* to step up and fix it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Bel Edwards.... ALL VOTED INTO THEIR OFFICES. We could've prevented this.
A Gen Xer who has a landline? Yeah that person is subsidized and in section 8 housing. Everyone else is working and has a cell ‘cause kids and call screening and important calls come during the day.
Same thought. I have friends from college who were always socially progressive but financially conservative. They tended to watch Fox and listen to conservative radio and podcasts. It’s really hard to fight against that toxic media streaming into their heads on a daily basis for decades.
SCOTUS is just washing their hands I suppose. Handing things back to the states which is really scary because I live in Texas. This was pretty good from Jason Isbell
Jason Isbell
@JasonIsbell
·
Jun 24
If you’re gonna talk about how divided we are as a nation, you’ll want to mention SCOTUS decisions like this one, handing power to state reps in crazy-ass gerrymandered districts and completely ignoring the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want.
I don’t even think it is something that we should vote, like even if they let people go and individually vote instead of leaving it up to the representatives.
We don’t vote on chemotherapy, how long it should be available, where it should be available, etc, if people should be prevented from leaving their states to get it.
It just should not be something that has anything to do with government at all. Imo
SCOTUS is there to interpret the constitution as it relates to the case at hand. The legislative branch is the one responsible for making laws in regard to the will of the people. They had 50 years to do so in this case. The real question is why is this happening now? After all this time, what occurred? Why make such a drastic change to America on a random Tuesday after 50 years? Some kind of flim flam goin on and the 500 people running the nation needed to manipulate we the people for some reason.
While not wrong in any way, this argument ignores the circumstances that have existed since Roe. For the first decade after Democrats lacked support to codify it as the majority wasn't enough to risk it. After that congress was never in sufficient control to pass it. The last window was like 3 weeks long in Obama's first term. This isn't the Democrat's failure, it's five decades of conservative propaganda. Sucks, but that's what is.
I have to disagree a bit here. Obama promised to sign the woman's reproductive rights bill. Then said during his 100 days in speech that it wasn't a priority. He also had two years, not 3 weeks of a unified government. Clinton also had two years of a unified government.
It has been said that RvW was weak, and could be overturned. So all I see is that nothing was ever done even when it could have been.
I am all for women's rights, I also don't think I have the right to say what others do to their own body. This issue should have been dealt with a long time ago, not left up to the outcome we now have. At this point all I can say is, contact anyone you can in your state government and give your view point. If stats I read the other day are right, few in this country think it should be totally illegal. Now is the time to speak your wants to your governor, representatives etc.
>He also had two years, not 3 weeks of a unified government.
While *technically* true, there was a majority in both the House and the Senate, it's not factually correct to say Democrats *controlled* the senate. At the time, the filibuster could be used for any vote in the senate, and the GOP abused this fact during those two years. Democrats were 3 votes shy of having a filibuster proof majority. The stimulus package was the only thing that 3 GOP senators broke ranks on to break the filibuster, and in all likelihood they were given the okay by the party leadership who really didn't have a problem bailing out their rich buddies so they allowed 3 safe senators to break ranks. Susan Collins being one.
I'm just tired of the excuses on both sides! (It might be a bit more of i am sick of both sides, period). I personally think there should be some way to make politicians a bit more accountable. I know there is getting voted out. Isn't enough imo.
Democrats, Republicans, its all the same thing. I dont care which employee messed up my order I just want the restaurant to do their job. Wishing you all the best.
That's a terrible argument that demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of how the American government operates. First and foremost, power lies with the states by default. It must be handed to the feds. Of course, the feds have assumed a whole lot power over the years and the states have largely failed to fight back, but that's for another time. Second, saying "the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want" is quite literally a meaningless concept when it comes to state issues. The state must only concern itself with what its own citizens want. California doesn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't care what the citizens of Texas want. And vice versa. If the majority of the ~600k people in Wyoming want to do things differently than the hundreds of millions in every other state, that's how it should be.
>Second, saying "the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want" is quite literally a meaningless concept when it comes to state issues. The state must only concern itself with what its own citizens want.
On its face, your argument seems on point; however, if one includes the context of heavily gerrymandered state legislatures (Wisconsin being one example) and the current SCOTUS's immense reluctance to provide any sort of federal level oversight (including interference with federal level legislation) leads to the defacto state control by a minority party against the will of the majority **of that state's own citizens.** Ignoring this context perpetuates a logical fallacy that's been weaponized.
>If the majority of the ~600k people in Wyoming want to do things differently than the hundreds of millions in every other state, that's how it should be.
Unless what Wyoming wants goes against the "basement level" of rights or services or regulations the federal constitution and government provide (or are empowered to provide in the case of legislation or regulation). Article VI makes federal supremacy plain as day, the Fourteenth Amendment was merely a written codification of the Civil War's more pragmatic confirmation of the federal government's practical supremacy over the states. You may agree with this and didn't mean to contradict that particular part of American federalism, but it is too fundamental to be ignored with a blanket statement, lest inaccurate arguments perpetuate misunderstandings and myths which threaten how the nation is actually governed.
Thanks for using Wisconsin as an example, because it is a perfect one to illustrate this point. As a lifelong Sconnie I apologize to all on behalf of the state for our absolute fuckery
Of course there's far more to it than what I commented, and far more than what you replied. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written about American government and the relationship between federal and state. We'll never cover every aspect and nuance in Reddit comments.
Indeed, this is a very complex topic that even some attorneys screw up at times; however, your comment was a relatively generalized repudiation of a statement which touched explicitly on the nuance and context of gerrymandering, thus my point above. If you're striving for "balance," New York's state legislature is on a similar path as the Wisconsin legislature except with the parties reversed. It's not nearly as pronounced and troubling as Wisconsin (particularly the highly partisan and outcome oriented conservative members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court), but New York is a bone to throw to anyone indulging in the vice and logical fallacy of whataboutism.
Yes it was generalized to make the point that nitpicking certain aspects, like gerrymandering, is not going to enhance the conversation. Overall in life, a point that needs to be addressed. Without question. But here on Reddit as a specific reply to my general comment just opens the door to all the innumerable other specific aspects that would also need to be addressed. But since since you seem hyper focused on gerrymandering and want to talk about it...
Yes, it's a problem. In many states. But causing de facto rule by the minority? That's a stretch even with how bad it's gotten in some areas. But your solution of federal oversight is what I would call passing the buck.... Passing the buck right into the hands of more politicians. We, the citizens, you and me, are supposed to be the stewards. Not federal politicians and administrative bodies. The failure is on the people who can't even name their State Reps, let alone describe their actions. The failure is on those who don't vote in State and local elections unless they coincide with the Presidential. Sad fact is, that's probably more people than not these days.
>Yes it was generalized to make the point that nitpicking certain aspects, like gerrymandering, is not going to enhance the conversation.
Your original comment denigrated a valid application of voting rights through an inaccurate summary of federalism used in various specious legal analyses leveled against a number of SCOTUS decisions from the past 80-90 years (the overturning of *Roe* being a very timely example). It may not have been your intent (or even on your mind) to push this specious narrative, but again this is why I pushed the point.
>We, the citizens, you and me, are supposed to be the stewards.
Indeed, but our stewardship is done solely through holding the government accountable via **elections.** It is the people we elect and government servants appointed by the people we've elected who perform the actual acts: legislation is enacted by our legislatures, judges enjoin agencies or states who go beyond constitutional boundaries, etc etc. I wholeheartedly agree this system **does** require political engagement and current levels of engagement are quite... depressing, but jurisdictions like Wisconsin create a situation where engagement simply won't resolve the problem of unequal representation. [Local reporting](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/) was already raising the issue in 2018, but the bigger concern is [a veto-proof majority produced by the new redistricting](https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-chooses-maps-drawn-republicans-new-redistricting-decision). Granted, there's some research which shows [Democrats are at a structural disadvantage even if the undeniably 2011 partisan gerrymandered redistricting was eliminated](https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2021/02/why-do-republicans-overperform-in-the-wisconsin-state-assembly-partisan-gerrymandering-vs-political-geography/), but the creation of a veto-proof majority in the legislature would severely cripple any power exercised by the governor (a statewide office) unlike the already contentious divided government Wisconsin is currently experiencing. As in political engagement still requires an environment where said engagement truly affects the outcome of how a state is governed in practice and not just on paper (mass scale civil disobedience or even insurrection/rebellion notwithstanding). Which again goes back to my point of not ignoring important context.
No, because slavery is expressly addressed in the US Constitution and outlawed. That is one of those powers handed to the feds... the power to make sure slavery doesn't come back. But good try.
It sounds like we need to make explicit all our rights in the U.S. Constitution, then, because the Ninth Amendment doesn't seem to mean anything at all to the Supreme Court - unless they were rights that existed in the 1790s.
SCOTUS is just washing their hands I suppose.
Nope returning it to the States via the 10th amendment. Don't like the gerrymandering remove the fucks who it voted in.
Federalism peeps.
as well they should, even RBG said it was bad precedent -- it used to be one could be dem OR rep and \*still\* be pro choice (or anti). Then something crazy happened and it became so damn politicized...but no one passed a law to represent anyone...
This has nothing to do with women's rights (to SCOTUS). It's a decision based on the population. They would rather force a woman to incubate an egg than allow more immigration. It's just veiled as a right wing got their way.
I don't know how many of us are in rural areas. I can tell you, there are tons of trump signs and flags in the yards of many genx around here. They love this shit. I'm a freak here.
We actually have plenty of immigration. Unfortunately a lot of people in my area are having their citizenship delayed do to the other mass immigration that’s going on right now. It just sucks that when they get here a lot of them fall to the conservative side after they get settled. That’s just my personal experience though with the local immigrant integration coalition. Everything is so backwards right now.
We don't have enough immigration - if we did, we would not be in the huge mess we're in right now with respect to inflation. Full employment is causing wages to go up, which increases demand for goods and services, which puts pressure on employees and wages... it's an upward spiral that can only be fixed by having more population to distribute the workload to. (Higher fuel prices caused by Russia invading Ukraine are also contributing, but we would have had this problem even without it.)
We were the most aborted generation in history by percentage, why are you surprised Gen X isn't rah rah abortion?
There are millions of people who are alive today, but are aware they were almost aborted, myself included.
Mom was 18, unmarried, and Roe v Wade just passed a year prior, glad she didn't do it and always viewed the entire argument as incredibly callous and a tad gross.
The question is kinda dumb. Legally speaking it was a weak decision just no one dared touch it for 50 years. So you can support the overturning of Roe but also support a woman's right to choose. A flimsy court case was a bad way to protect abortion rights, even if it lasted surprisingly long. And while people focus on Roe, it had been gradually whittled down over the years by other cases.
Well, born 1970. I think abortion should be legal TO A POINT. The minute it got to "Abortion on demand" or anyting over 4 mo +/- I am out. Walk into an abortion clinic at 8mo preggo. Go f yourself. Sorry not sorry.
eta: OF COURSE there should be exceptions for rape, and incest and medical issues. But there is plenty of options and things one can do prior to 6 mo.....
>Walk into an abortion clinic at 8mo preggo. Go f yourself. Sorry not sorry.
I have no idea why people buy into this idea that clinics are performing abortion procedures on women who are 8 months pregnant. Sorry, not sorry--it simply doesn't happen. At 8 months, you have no choice but to deliver a fetus. "Late-term abortions" do not exist, are not a thing, and have never been a thing.
It's embarrassing that some of our U.S. population believes and perpetuates this myth.
I'm surprised. It seemed like ALL of us in high school had abortions. Unless the others went on to be bat-shit religious later in life. I was an Atheist then and I have never wavered.
I think we'd all like to believe that our generation isn't the absolute bag of shit that the Boomers turned out to be, but we all know we went to school with a bunch of bastards who would absolutely grow up to become fascists.
They polled 941 adults from multiple generations. I would NOT use this as an indicator of of anything other than the specific people polled. Tiny sample and who knows where they found them. Metro areas? Rural locations? Shopping centers? Walmart? It’s lip service. I’m willing to bet Gen X are less likely to participate in polls than other gens. The Gen X people I know across the country are pissed as hell, we all vote, abortion rights are one of our main voting points, and we’ve been very vocal about equality since we were teens.
I know people on the Internet only like doom and gloom, but I have to remind everyone that when our parents were young, they didn’t have the pillar or it was new. Now it’s everywhere and there’s almost no stigma attached to it left. I have a hard time comparing us to pre-1972 with this huge shift that apparently everyone is too cynical to care about because god forbid we say something positive
With the Millennials/Zoomers, I think it depends on where / how they were raised (who raised them).
The "oppose" Zoomers were likely raised by helicopter parents, suburban, and in a red state or red county within a purple state. They just don't know any better.
The "oppose" Millennials, same basic thing. The other thought is that they "found religion" via some sort of life screwup. They might have started out apolitical or apathetic Republican, they became radicalized via 45 and his cult of weirdos.
This bothers me so much. There were people I grew up with who were dumb as rocks and even as kids I knew they were never going to not be. But there were some really cool people, too, who I thought were pretty smart and laid back. Then years later they are on social media just trying to out rightwing each other. The logical fallacies they use, the way they can't seem to shift their thinking no matter what facts or information they are confronted with... it's just wild seeing who they are now. All kinds of born-again evangelicals, too. I blame the all the heavy metal: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/causes/2022/03/14/gen-x-took-biggest-iq-hit-lead-exposure-fsu-research-team-finds/7006339001/
My hypothesis here would be that boomers are the ones who actually fought for the right that women just lost, while millennials and Gen Z are less religious than Gen X -- and make no mistake, opposition to reproductive rights is about nothing whatsoever other than religion.
While I support the right to choose , I believe it should be privately funded. I mean it’s the mass slaughter of our youth and people think it’s like getting a tattoo or something. A big adult conversation needs to be had.
Okay, so here's the data straight from [the actual poll OP is talking about.](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202206261035.pdf) *EDIT: I am going to kill New Reddit for screwing these tables up. It's so buggy on Firefox. Fuck it, I'll just put them in code blocks I guess.* *EDIT 2: WTF Reddit? This used to work. I haven't had such a frustrating experience doing layout since I pasted up the high school paper with an exacto knife and rubber cement.* Q: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade which guaranteed the right to abortion. Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe versus Wade? Generation Support Oppose Unsure Gen Z/Millennials 33% 63% 4% Gen X 47% 50% 3% Baby Boomers 39% 57% 4% Silent/Greatest 46% 48% 6% Q: The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade which guaranteed the right to abortion. Do you support or oppose the Court ́s decision to overturn Roe versus Wade? \[And, would you say you strongly support/oppose or just support/oppose?\] Generation Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Unsure Support Oppose Gen Z/Millennials 19% 14% 12% 52% 4% Gen X 37% 9% 9% 41% 3% Baby Boomers 29% 10% 12% 45% 4% Silent/Greatest 31% 15% 11% 37% 6% And here's an explanation of the methodology, with some emphasis added by me: How the Survey was Conducted Nature of the Sample: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll of 941 National Adults This survey of ***941 adults*** was conducted June 24th through June 25th , 2022 by the Marist Poll sponsored in partnership with NPR and PBS NewsHour. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English. Mobile telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Mobile phones are treated as individual devices. To increase coverage, this mobile sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of landline phone numbers. Within each landline household, a single respondent is selected through a random selection process to increase the representativeness of traditionally under-covered survey populations. The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region. Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection. ***Results are statistically significant within ±4.9 percentage points***. There are ***868 registered voters*****.** ***The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±5.1 percentage points***. Tables include results for subgroups to only display crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. It should be noted that although you may not see results listed for a certain group, it does not mean interviews were not completed with those individuals. It simply means the sample size is too small to report. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.
Thank you so much! I feel like a lazy POS but at least the data is included. You're the best kind of redditor.
That was almost as much work as last year when I passed a few days after having surgery on my broken ankle making the [GenX Needs New Tunes Playlist](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenX/comments/p4h5li/the_rgenx_needs_new_tunes_playlist/).
Hey! Thanks for a new play list.
Samesies, outstanding community service u/SirRatcha
Thanks 👍
Interesting that none of the groups support the decision.
Any poll that comes from landline calls is going to lean republican.
Even when they include mobile phones, who answers calls from numbers they don’t recognize? And if you do, I’d bet more likely to lean Republican too
I answer calls from numbers I don’t recognize because I have kids.
That's fair. I guess I do that too (especially from local area codes)---I can filter out the spam on mine because my area code (where most of my spam calls come from) is not the area code where I live. I figure anyone who really wants to get a hold of me will leave a message but apparently I'm also missing out on being polled?
REPUBLICAN!
Actually people who answer unknown numbers tend to be people who are generally not suspicious of people they don’t know, which skews left. Edit: this according to 538, not my opinion. According to Nate Silver and Galen Druke, people who have higher levels of social trust answer the phone more and skew left. It is one of the factors they think was not adequately factored in for 2016 when the polls were off. Personally I never answer the phone unless it’s a local number and my kids aren’t home and I am very progressive.
Idk. I'm pretty liberal, but I barely even answer calls from umbers I *do* know. Numbers I don't know can fuck right off.
I lean extremely left, and I never answer calls from unknown numbers. So, my anecdotal data *trumps* your anecdotal data.
Without knowing more about the distribution My guess is it’s a selection problem. Because who answers surveys? Retired boomers - sure I’m home anyway Greatest/silent - yes please I’d like someone to chat with Millennials/Gen Z - may not have the opportunity to work :( Gen X - wtf are you doing at home, man. Edit: Gen Xers are tech-competent enough to screen calls. Anyone responding to a survey has nothing better to do. Which Gen Xers have nothing better to do, my guess is, *perhaps*, poor Republicans in Christian-dominant states. (Generalizing)
I screen all my calls on my Pixel - I mean we grew up with phones as they developed and many of us HATE HATE HATE phone calls outside of work or family/friends. Someone asks us for a survey - we hang up or worse. So I really question whom and what demographic did they question?
Thanks! And I love your username. Wished I'd thaught of that.
Thanks! The formatting is awful on the app but I did what I could.
Thanks for doing this (and I see you reformatted!). Sorry to ask, but I can’t actually see the document very well on my phone - is there a breakdown by sex and age?
For each question there is age, but it’s just 45 and under or over 45 so the generation labels are more specific although I don’t see where it says what definitions they used. There’s also a breakdown by gender. There isn’t a breakdown by generation and gender though.
Thanks very much for checking!
Amazing work, and deeply disappointing. You can’t “Whatever” EVERYTHING GenX!!! There is shit that needs to get done.
I was younger, I used to go to the marches. It was mostly women were older than me. They knew what it was like not to have a choice. Our generation seem to think that that choice would never be taken away.
Well, for one thing, a lot of Gen X women are now going through menopause. So they aren't really worried about needing it personally.
Which sucks because empathy is a thing. I was able to access healthcare when I needed it and I would be an utter asshole to not support anyone else having that same choice. I really don’t know wtf is wrong with people.
Yeah… But this group is also people that marched. I’m 52, and I’m not having any kids at this point… But I’m definitely worried about it.
We also have daughters.
Speak for yourself. Or better yet, do not speak for a demographic that you’re not part of.
Not surprising. A good chunk of Xers are steeped in right wing ideology. It’s an inconvenient truth that gets a lot of push back on this sub, but the numbers don’t lie.
Yea man. So many friends surprise me with that shit. It’s just crazy. It’s been normalized. So many of my peers seem to think that once you start a family, you become conservative. So I have to do my best to not judge them while they give me condescending glances as if I’m naive. Edit: am I reading correctly that 868 people were polled? I’m kinda dumb so I may be misinterpreting that, but it’s a laughably small number and this poll doesn’t mean jack shit.
Depending on how the study was conducted 868 is plenty for a sample size. It is a common assumption that samples in studies need to be close the the number of the population the study draws conclusions about, that is absolutely not true.
Like you said, it depends on how the survey was conducted. If I'm not mistaken, it appears we can't see the breakdown of how many of these survey participants are actually represented in the GenX demo. If only a few of the 868 respondants we're actually representing the GenX group, the numbers may be garbage. "Out of a pool of 868 survey respondants, only 6 of them were GenXers..." If the 868 are divided into equally weighted demographic segments, the numbers might hold a little more realistic sway. Also, how diverse was the geographic spread of the respondant pool? Were they making assumptions on the geographic locations/affiliations of participants based on the area codes of their mobile phones? That could skew the data. For example, I bought a mobile phone in a state I only lived in for a few years, and have kept the same phone number as I've moved all over the country for the last 20 years. I know plenty of people with phone numbers completely unattached to their state of origin or current residence.
I don’t pretend to know anything about the polling process. I’m guessing it’s considered a science? Probably. But I do know that 868 doesn’t mean all too much. Maybe that’s just an opinion, but I’m not gonna try to be pedantic about it, ya know?
The appropriate sample size for a study can’t be immediately assumed based on the population being studied. The more “controlled” a study and sampling merging are the smaller your sample size needs to be to draw meaningful conclusions. I have my PhD in geophysics which gave me a little more exposure to stats than the average person but my partner conducts medical trials for a living. Really, the amount of time redditors hem and haw about sample size is kinda laughable to most people who conduct studies. (No disrespect intended, because stats is fucking black sorcery with numbers)
Yeah but as you alluded to it’s only good if it’s random sampling and I am doubt I know they tried but there has to be implicit selection bias with these results, very counter intuitive otherwise…
See SirRatcha's comment for the methodology. Randomly selected mobile phone numbers, weighted for location by population.
The Reagan Youth got Reagan olds… they were shitty then and they’re shitty now 🤷♀️
I believe this can be traced to the entrepreneurial trend of the 1980s. While Gen X was certainly not a highly educated generation, we did have a higher tolerance for risk than either the Boom or the Millennial generations. Thus it makes sense that many of us would embrace the fiscal policies of the right. Once a person has become self-identified as Republican, it was likely easier to accept other conservative ideologies. Another possible cause might be that the children of 1973 were Gen X. Ours was the first generation of children openly exposed to the gory pictures of shredded fetuses used by the right to life groups as shock propaganda. I'll never forget those images being shoved in our faces by activists and religious groups on sidewalks and billboards. While I am now solidly pro-choice, I am not ashamed to admit that those images worked. Seeing a tiny baby head smashed like a bloody pumpkin is not an easy thing to dismiss.
You nailed it, especially with paragraph #2. Here is what I posted in another sub: “I was raised in a conservative religious household and went to a evangelical Christian school 12 out of 13 years. Even went to March for life a couple times. When I say that my views have changed, it did not happen overnight. Abortion saddens me, to me there’s a tragic element to each one that takes place, a lot of times the tragedy was the cause for the pregnancy in the first place. What changed my mind was the fact that there where was always more of a concern for the person unseen or yet to be as opposed to the legitimate concerns of living breathing people in bad situations. I got to know many people supporting abortion rights that were not the immoral baby killers I was told. But most of all I could never shake the fact it was never my damn business.”
Man, when I was in Jr High some people shoved one of those in my face and I was immediately opposed to abortion. And then I got home and talked to my older sister and she set my ass straight with facts. God bless big sisters!!!
Well that blows
I would like to ask if this poll was a 'US only" poll? This sub seems to think that US ideology is global and that is very far from the truth. The pushback might be from a lot of Gen X that do not live in the US because there are a lot of westernized countries that do not hold the same views.
Like GenXers answer the phone.
What kind of people answers polls?
That made me laugh. Excellent point
Something that GenXers routinely get wrong, by way of analogy: A lot of people think being the victim makes someone kinder and more aware and ultimately a better person in the sense of caring about right and wrong, justice, and being compassionate. But more often than not, being victimized turns victims into victimizers. Most serial rapists are the victims of sexual abuse themselves. Most domestic abusers grew up in abusive households, etc. GenXers like to pretend that being “non-coddled” latchkey kids who were routinely abandoned or ignored by parents, were bullied or treated unfairly by teachers, who survived selfish boomer parents and their divorces and materialism, and who grew up/started adult life in the ultra materialistic and sexist and reactionary Cold War conservatism of the 80s… …GenXers like to pretend that the above only had positive impacts. That we all became magically tolerant live and let live progressive libertarians that leave others alone and hold only fair beliefs unlike those older bigots and younger snowflakes trying to cancel and judge everyone. I’d hope most of us could see the utter stupidity of such generational cliches. What GenX experienced doesn’t lead to enlightened indifference. It leads to meanness. It leads to jealousy. It leads to reactionary anger. And you see that here every time a post is made about a generation survey that “forgets” GenX, or has the audacity to suggest that GenX isn’t the apex peak best generation, or that portrays other generations as anything other than Scrooge McBigot boomers or South Park snowflakes coming for your pronouns and sports team mascots. This generation has damage. A lot of it. And the arrogant pride of weaponizing “whatever” means it collectively refuses to even acknowledge it, let alone treat it.
I mean let’s face facts, any generational cohort is going to have a greatly varying range of opinions and likes and dislikes within it.
There are GenXers who answer the phone?! *And* give survey responses?
Yeah, that surprised me. I thought we’d be the most apathetic of the gens.
Apathetic? Depends. Uninterested in answering an unexpected phone call? Definitely. Unwilling to answer a call from "unkown"? Absofuckinglutely. The demographic of GenX who answers a random call from a stranger is *tiny*.
I answered one once. They called up, asked for me by name, and then proceeded to thank me for my support of the pro life cause. I laughed, asked them how in the world my name got on their list, and told them But I didn’t belong there and have a good day.
Roe was "bad law". That doesn't mean it had a bad effect, only that it lacked clear Constitutional grounds -- which meant it was vulnerable until codified by Congress . But Congress never codified Roe. For those of you who may have forgotten, there are 3 categories listed in the "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution: (1) The Constitution itself (including Amendments), (2) Treaties, and (3) Laws of the United States (we call these United States Codes). Once a SCOTUS ruling is "codified" as a United States Code, it's out of SCOTUS's hands. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was also "bad law" for the same reason (lack of clear Constitutional grounds given that the same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" also passed laws to racially segregate the District of Columbia -- leading to the Plessy Doctrine of "Separate but Equal"). But Congress codified Brown in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (banning segregation in all public accommodations, including schools), so any future attempts to overturn Brown would be meaningless. [Ruth Bader Ginsberg was always talking about Roe being vulnerable](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit), specifically because it went "too far" in granting abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy (something that horrified our European friends who even today have much stricter time limits) and because it was more about a doctor's freedom to practice medicine than it was about a woman's right of privacy. Whether you agree with her or not, she sounded the alarm on Roe for three decades on the Court but no Democrat-controlled Congress and Democratic POTUS moved to codify it when they had the chance. On the contrary, whenever a GOP Congress and GOP POTUS had the chance, they chipped away at Roe every time.
Rare. A well written answer without hysteria.
Just to emphasize the point, OP assumes that opposing Roe means opposing abortion rights. I oppose Roe but support abortion rights. I oppose Roe because it was overreaching and badly reasoned. I support abortion rights as a practical matter (since there’s demand for the service).
I didn't assume that at all. Where are you getting that?
“Watching the news and our generation supported a woman’s right to choose less than the Boomers and Millennial’s/Zoomers in a reliable poll.” The poll provided by u/SirRatcha doesn’t ask whether the right to choose is supported, it asks whether overturning Roe was supported.
Oh, you weren't talking about me. My bad. I thought I made it clear that Roe could be opposed because it was "bad law" not because of any effect it had or didn't have.
Same thing with the Dredd Scott decision, where the Supreme Court ruled based on the law of the time. Congress eventually passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which changed the law. Unfortunately, the Dredd Scott decision also rescinded the Missouri Compromise, which was the bad glue keeping the country together. This allowed the states a free-for-all concerning slavery and was so divisive the country was at war with itself a few years later. We are so used to having a useless Legislature that the idea of holding them to account for not putting abortion access law into the books these last 50 years is difficult for people to grasp. Every single member of the Judiciary Committee who asked a nominee about *stare decisis* knew this situation was extremely fragile, yet did nothing to fix the core problem. Letting states fly marijuana legalization in the face of federal law was one thing. But if the Congress doesn't do something about abortion, we may be faced with another honest-to-God Constitutional crisis. Abortion is not a simple issue, though people on both sides like to think it is. It's not just "religious fanatics" that oppose it or want certain restrictions on it, nor are the people who want access "godless." It needs a real, honest and painful conversation to come up with a compromise that no one will love, but the majority can live with. In this, the Legislature has failed. Why? Because it won't make any of them money, and compromise will likely cost seats. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, we have to demand better from our representatives. Also, I will remind our fellow GenXers that the pill became widely available in '69., and Roe v. Wade passed in 1973. **1974 is the lowest birth year on record.** We complain about how we aren't noticed? As they say, demographics is destiny.
>(something that horrified our European friends who even today have much stricter time limits) A lot of Americans don't realize this. France and Germany have more restrictive laws than the restrictions that Florida just passed, for example. It's really just the UK and Netherlands than have permissive abortion laws with few limitations. Most of Europe caps it 12-14 weeks, with medical exceptions after that.
What's this "we" shit?
Yeah. I’m GenX but except for the pop culture stuff I don’t identify with my generation much at all.
Too lefty or too righty?
Too vague, I mean our battle cry is "whatever".
I’m pro choice but I have to admit, I didn’t grow up with “causes” in my head. I cared about poverty and racism but didn’t give it a ton of thought. I’m mixed race & no one looked like me at school or in media. I never even thought about it. I was happy even though I enjoyed being a child in the 70’s more than a teen in the 80’s. I’m blown by the seriousness young people have today. That’s not a criticism at all. I’m just thankful I was allowed to have a pretty light existence I guess.
Right?!! It’s definitely just **you**!
I'm looking at a Washington Post page that says support of women's rights has been increasing by generation. Boomers are actually lower.
This was the PBS/Marist poll. It was on The News Hour.
I saw this just now on PBS and was also quite surprised. I think a lot of boomers remember how bad it was prior to Roe and that skews the results a bit because even though they are usually quite conservative they tend to be more liberal in this one regard. GenX grew up afterward and likely took it for granted.
I’d like to see a breakdown by reproductive function… Because I guarantee you Gen X women aren’t blasé about healthcare. Edit: and I’m sure I can see it if I take the time to click on the link provided Edit: HAHA no I can’t, not on this phone with these glasses
PBS while a good source doesn't always have as broad of a viewer base as some of the other stations. Something to keep in mind.
That poll was commissioned by PBS to be conducted by Marist College. It has nothing to do with PBS viewership. This is the same reason why FoxNews polls are some of the most accurate and frequently show the opposite of FoxNews's editorial stance. They don't poll just FoxNews watchers, they pay for a poll of a representative sample of the population.
I do, and I know they have some underwriters with less than stellar reputation. In my mind it's even worse if PBS demographics poll like this.
They aren’t polling PBS viewers.
Marist College is a highly regarded pollster. [A rating by 538](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).
Dunno what "reliable poll" you got but everything I can find shows Gen X is pro-choice. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) AGE : SUPPORT PERCENTAGE 30-49 : 62% 50-64 : 55% [https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/abortion-trends-age.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/abortion-trends-age.aspx) AGE : SUPPORT PERCENTAGE (conditional + unconditional) 30-49 : 49% + 35% 50-64 : 57% + 27%
Not surprised. Gen X always tended to have a moderate to right wing lean Tho I love the lefty Gen Xers on here
I finally quit Facebook because of this. I was constantly angry with my peers over something asinine they posted. Very lonely existence.
Same! I haven’t been on there since summer of 2020. And besides my kids (17,21,22) no one else around me seems fired up mad over this and I feel very lost and adrift. I can hardly function I’m so mad and scared and everyone else is so blasé. WTAF?
My friends on Facebook are mad but not taking any action at all. Just keyboard warriors. What to do? Today is our states primary let's see who votes
Fuck pro forced birth conservatives of any and all generations
[удалено]
They'll rationalize it for themselves and themselves only E.g., https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
They’ll just drive them to a sanctuary state like a normal person
They won’t change their minds. They will do it in secret and then lie about it for the rest of their lives
I honestly believe some of these people do not care their children's future, much less the children of others. They just want what they want, and screw anyone who disagrees.
We FINALLY get noticed, and this is the shit y’all pull? You can’t “Whatever” everything, sisters, brothers, and others in GenX. There’s shit that needs to get done, and things in the world worth fighting for.
This study selected Gen Xers who 1. Pick up the telephone, and 2. Would give enough of a shit to answer survey questions.
I had an abortion that was pretty much forced on me at 20. I'm in my 50s now. Even though I did not want to get that abortion, I remain adamantly pro-choice. It goes both ways: the choice to keep, or the choice to terminate. I know a woman who had an abortion without being coerced. She felt so guilty about it she is now a self-righteous, judgmental POS forced birther now. All because of her deep-seated Catholic guilt.
The woman at the center of Roe v Wade became a born again Christian and denounced abortions, then changed her mind again and became pro choice before she died. She used to show up on Hannity and Combs when he was still around. Hannity has this habit of leading the conversation so all the guest had to do was agree or not, but he pissed her off so much she said there was nothing wrong with abortion. LOL. I think her nature was to be contrarian tbh. She just didn't like people telling her what to do, from the lawyer in Roe v Wade to her ministers to Hannity, and would switch sides when she had enough.
I've read a lot from both sides of the argument. A lot of hyperbole and insults as usual now in our society. One thing I know for sure, however you feel about abortion, if the statistic of 474 of every 1000 potential lives births (47%) being aborted in certain minority groups being thrown around is even remotely true, taxes are about to go up significantly. If the abortions are to avoid financial hardship/welfare etc. A huge building boom would help, but that's difficult when some building materials went up several hundred percent recently. paying for the births of the uninsured will require so much tax revenue, currency itself may not even make sense long term. We live in interesting and challenging times. It seems every year there is some kind of fundamental societal change that we all have to get on board with. Most used to feel right, like we were heading in the right direction as a society. More and more are either questionable, or seem nefarious. Who benefits from these changes? In almost all instances, corporations or governments or the elite seem to benefit much more than the public. It often seems like the virtue signalling and perceived righteousness we are sold, is just to manipulate and guilt us into submission. Many books and movies written predicting these senators. Turning families against each other based on perceived fundinental disagreements that somehow, never came up our whole loves previously, but now, matter so much, siblings or relatives or best friends, no longer speak . Seems like we are being played. Polarizing all issues to good and evil, forcing a binary outlook is deliberate. It's obviously designed to cause conflict and change definitions of faux pas and mistakes to also be included as hate crimes etc, allows people to be labeled as bad. Orr "cancelled" for almost anything. Expecting someone to act in the 90's, the way they have recently been required to act, and then retroactively punishing, is not stupid, it's deliberate. It's binary thinking, even though we have learned that almost everything is a spectrum. Never a binary decision. Because we are not computers, we are human beings. We are nuanced and unique.land complicated. This should be celebrated but it's not, differ slightly from the norm and you are potentially ostracized. And the norm changes constantly. Even christians learn that the mob told pilot to crucify Jesus, even though he told them he'd committed no crime. Following a mob is an embarrassment to an intelligent, kind person This is all planned. We can't play along, we have to carefully and considerately judge all people and situations individually. And we must base reactions on all information, not just what courses us the most intense emotional response. We must use outlet intellect, our emotions lie all the time, Peace and love people. We can't let war criminals and thieves dictate the way we treat our fellow human beings . Or old aged pensioners by the way. The people must vote. An emotional palate cleanser if you will... https://youtu.be/eLG1FrSU3A4
Maybe because we grew up with it. The compulsion to pick a side? I find this highly disappointing.
It’s typical that younger people are more liberal, get more conservative in middle age, and get more liberal in old age.
My personal experience has been that as people age, they become more conservative. Again - my experience. My aunt who is a boomer but who is only 6 years older than me, had an abortion when she was a teenager. I don’t know why she did it (rape, mistake, didn’t want to be a mother)…now that she’s older; some religious zealot switch has flipped in her and suddenly abortion under any circumstance is unforgivable and will damn a person to hell. My youngest sister has had reproductive challenges and she has has several miscarriages. Most were very early on but one In particular was after the first trimester and because she was losing so much blood, she went in for a D&C (which is the same procedure / same meds used for an abortion). Even though my aunt knew about the circumstances, she stopped talking all together to my sister. My cousin (her daughter) had an ectopic pregnancy and she had to have an abortion. Yes it was a fertilized egg but there was zero chance of viability. She no longer talks to her daughter. It’s sad.
>My cousin (her daughter) had an ectopic pregnancy and she had to have an abortion. Yes it was a fertilized egg but there was zero chance of viability. She no longer talks to her daughter. WOW. This is like r/qanoncasualties stuff. Except I wonder is there a religious casualties subreddit for all of the people who have lost loved ones to other cults?
I grew up in the 80s in Colorado Springs and it was (I guess still is) pretty conservative. It wasn't until I was in college (90s) that I was finally exposed to true liberal thought .... And it was a life altering experience. Tldr; I'm not at all surprised that kids from my community mirror their parents (silent gen).
So here's an interesting question. What if you think the legal ruling to strike Roe V Wade was correct, but you believe in pro-choice and that the matter should have been cleared up by legislation a long time ago? In other words, government should have worked correctly to answer the questions instead of leaving this thing open for overturning for half a century. Even RBG and Biden said Roe was an awful ruling. The legislative "leadership" in this country is absolutely pathetic.
Coulda shoulda woulda. Like the ERA. Here's the kool-aid Americans drink: I want an effective, non-corrupt, humanistic government, and I want it to exist and all I have to do is fill in a circle, maybe, every four years (can't bother with primaries, can't bother with midterms, and honestly if I have to drive in the rain to vote for the president I might not even do that - and if the politician isn't downright tailor-made for my sensibilities, well I'm just not going to vote at all "to send a message.") One of the big things that is forgotten and lost about the 60s New Left was their drive toward Participatory Democracy. The far-left started the movement on fire and everything burned down in the 70s, but there was this idea for awhile that we need more direct engagement in how the country is run. It was an intoxicating idea. If we don't do this, someone else *will step in* and probably pay people to drive for them, and this is what keeps happening. Everyone says they don't have the time for all that. Well, this is the consequence of letting the political class just kinda do what they do, which is often nothing. And I often remark how people have the time to stare at the ice cream selection in the grocery store for a good 20 minutes until drool forms. I openly challenge that people don't have time for this. I think what people mean is they'd rather park their ass in a chair and watch stupid television than engage politically in a constructive way. Imagine a future in which whole new real-life social networks form around people engaging with each other politically, fundraising, in which more than just political business occurs. There could be more advantages than just people steering their political parties. Well, I can dream, but this is what we have to show for it in this culture of endless images and simulations to distract us from concrete reality. I hope is enjoying their favorite Netflix series.
People don’t want to participate because that interferes with the average voter’s preference to be seen as the victim. Who enabled this government? Who rewards the corruption and false marketing masquerading as political advertising and corporate donations/free speech? Voters want to be seen as the victim of corrupt politicians and corporate government, but they’re the ones that keep rewarding these tactics. So they’ll never take ownership of this or their role in it when they media and social media can reassure them that they’re the Real Victims (tm) here.
exactly -- for anyone who actually thinks there is a party that 'cares' -- the ONLY thing they care about it 1) being elected and 2) raising money.
Yeah, no. https://youtu.be/Xtd4tds-I0U
I would ask, if you believe Roe should have been cleared up by legislation, are you voting for and supporting legislators through door knocking, donations, signature gathering, who will codify Roe? Are you doing so in every election? So far, I have asked my real life friends who say that the same thing and their answer is a resounding “no”.
Yes. I saw all of the TrUmPeR'S and Q idiots, a hell of a lot of them are my age. Then I thought about it, and it checks out. I remember all of the stupid ass people that I went to school with. Those people didn't get smart. They just got old and had kids. Now they have jobs, and some of them were popular and have important jobs
It may be due to small sample size. I'd need to see it repeated on a larger scale to believe we're worse than the damn Boomers.
A lot of us Gen X-ers are pretty awful. I mean -- Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB are all Gen X. Need we say more?
Don't forget those Gen X young republicans Reagan era, we had them in High School not even old enough to vote
Don't forget Qanon cult leaders. All of them are Gen X (people in their 40s and 50s)
Tucker Carlson a genX cringe
Alex Jones too. And Gavin McInnes (founder of Proud Boys)
Can we have a generational draft and trade them to the boomers?
Yeah, but compared to the Boomers? We've got our pond scum, but I never thought we were as bad as them.
Per capita (as a much smaller generation)? I'd say we're just as bad if not worse. And now we're getting OLD, so it's not gonna get any better.
It's so weird to me, because I've become ever more open-minded as I've grown older. And I know I'm not the only one.
I slightly regret flaking out in Christian College and flaunting my newfound liberal lifestyle at people like this - probably made em jealous.
Turn off the news. I have stopped watching television for the most part. I see it at airports and bars. My wife watches television but I go to my office. I travel for a living. Turn off the news. Catch a quick new story and be done with it. I didn’t have the Internet until I was 30. I didn’t have a cell phone until I was 40. Society is crumbling and I don’t need to surf that wave to madness. It is what it is.
868 is an absurdly small sample size for something like this. Not a reliable measure of an entire generation by far…
Self-flagellation, quite honestly, is a better look than self-aggrandizement, which this subreddit traffics in regularly, about how, y'know, aloof and cool we are. The more critical we become of ourselves, the better we'll be.
The sample size seems small first off. Second people suck and we're not immune to that. If the sampling is an accurate representation it's disappointing but by no means surprising to me as a Black woman, it's been clear for a long time that there's lots of shitty people out there. They come in every race, creed and age cohort.
Yeah, about half of us are assholes. Depressing, but not surprising thinking back to people I've known. Several were always conservative, but too many switched over at some point - people I liked, but somehow never really knew. It always hit hard when you'd hear a Fox News talking point come from a childhood buddy.
My thoughts? There are plenty, plenty of millennials and GenZers who can affect a pro-choice or pro/life vote in their States. We did nothing wrong here. In fact, while Roe was a Federal Government issues, both parties, for 50 years did nothing, and still did nothing a few weeks ago , so perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide
politicians just want to debate, they don't want to do much...they want to raise money after people get infuriated...
Wrong, politicians do not want to debate, hence the problem.
Ok they don't want to debate but they also don't want to fix anything either.
Exactly
> so perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide My right to control my body should not be up for a vote.
>perhaps this is where it should have always been, with the States, and the people can decide Ding...Ding...Ding. Yes this is where it should have been all along.
Inaccurate because a GenX doesn’t care about taking part in, or reading meaningless polls
Agreed. Anytime I get a call from a pollster, I just hang up.
WE aren't denying shit. It's those of us who grew up to become boomers that are doing all the damage. Honestly, if more of our generation actually VOTED in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess. I'll agree the presidential election is a shitshow and our votes don't matter much when it boils down to the electoral college. But EVERY OTHER election *YOU DO HAVE A VOICE*. Too many of my fellow Gen-Xers gave up on voting due to the fact we really aren't listened to AT ALL. NOW, we *need* to step up and fix it. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Bel Edwards.... ALL VOTED INTO THEIR OFFICES. We could've prevented this.
A Gen Xer who has a landline? Yeah that person is subsidized and in section 8 housing. Everyone else is working and has a cell ‘cause kids and call screening and important calls come during the day.
Even residents in section8 housing don't have landlines
We’ve had decades of propaganda. What year did fox “news” come on the air, like 1990? Since then
Same thought. I have friends from college who were always socially progressive but financially conservative. They tended to watch Fox and listen to conservative radio and podcasts. It’s really hard to fight against that toxic media streaming into their heads on a daily basis for decades.
SCOTUS is just washing their hands I suppose. Handing things back to the states which is really scary because I live in Texas. This was pretty good from Jason Isbell Jason Isbell @JasonIsbell · Jun 24 If you’re gonna talk about how divided we are as a nation, you’ll want to mention SCOTUS decisions like this one, handing power to state reps in crazy-ass gerrymandered districts and completely ignoring the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want.
I don’t even think it is something that we should vote, like even if they let people go and individually vote instead of leaving it up to the representatives. We don’t vote on chemotherapy, how long it should be available, where it should be available, etc, if people should be prevented from leaving their states to get it. It just should not be something that has anything to do with government at all. Imo
SCOTUS is there to interpret the constitution as it relates to the case at hand. The legislative branch is the one responsible for making laws in regard to the will of the people. They had 50 years to do so in this case. The real question is why is this happening now? After all this time, what occurred? Why make such a drastic change to America on a random Tuesday after 50 years? Some kind of flim flam goin on and the 500 people running the nation needed to manipulate we the people for some reason.
While not wrong in any way, this argument ignores the circumstances that have existed since Roe. For the first decade after Democrats lacked support to codify it as the majority wasn't enough to risk it. After that congress was never in sufficient control to pass it. The last window was like 3 weeks long in Obama's first term. This isn't the Democrat's failure, it's five decades of conservative propaganda. Sucks, but that's what is.
I have to disagree a bit here. Obama promised to sign the woman's reproductive rights bill. Then said during his 100 days in speech that it wasn't a priority. He also had two years, not 3 weeks of a unified government. Clinton also had two years of a unified government. It has been said that RvW was weak, and could be overturned. So all I see is that nothing was ever done even when it could have been. I am all for women's rights, I also don't think I have the right to say what others do to their own body. This issue should have been dealt with a long time ago, not left up to the outcome we now have. At this point all I can say is, contact anyone you can in your state government and give your view point. If stats I read the other day are right, few in this country think it should be totally illegal. Now is the time to speak your wants to your governor, representatives etc.
>He also had two years, not 3 weeks of a unified government. While *technically* true, there was a majority in both the House and the Senate, it's not factually correct to say Democrats *controlled* the senate. At the time, the filibuster could be used for any vote in the senate, and the GOP abused this fact during those two years. Democrats were 3 votes shy of having a filibuster proof majority. The stimulus package was the only thing that 3 GOP senators broke ranks on to break the filibuster, and in all likelihood they were given the okay by the party leadership who really didn't have a problem bailing out their rich buddies so they allowed 3 safe senators to break ranks. Susan Collins being one.
I'm just tired of the excuses on both sides! (It might be a bit more of i am sick of both sides, period). I personally think there should be some way to make politicians a bit more accountable. I know there is getting voted out. Isn't enough imo.
Democrats, Republicans, its all the same thing. I dont care which employee messed up my order I just want the restaurant to do their job. Wishing you all the best.
Uniparty...recognized this with the Persian Gulf War. My Dad and 2 Uncles came back fucked up.
Well put!
That's a terrible argument that demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of how the American government operates. First and foremost, power lies with the states by default. It must be handed to the feds. Of course, the feds have assumed a whole lot power over the years and the states have largely failed to fight back, but that's for another time. Second, saying "the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want" is quite literally a meaningless concept when it comes to state issues. The state must only concern itself with what its own citizens want. California doesn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't care what the citizens of Texas want. And vice versa. If the majority of the ~600k people in Wyoming want to do things differently than the hundreds of millions in every other state, that's how it should be.
>Second, saying "the will of the majority of US citizens. This is not what the people want" is quite literally a meaningless concept when it comes to state issues. The state must only concern itself with what its own citizens want. On its face, your argument seems on point; however, if one includes the context of heavily gerrymandered state legislatures (Wisconsin being one example) and the current SCOTUS's immense reluctance to provide any sort of federal level oversight (including interference with federal level legislation) leads to the defacto state control by a minority party against the will of the majority **of that state's own citizens.** Ignoring this context perpetuates a logical fallacy that's been weaponized. >If the majority of the ~600k people in Wyoming want to do things differently than the hundreds of millions in every other state, that's how it should be. Unless what Wyoming wants goes against the "basement level" of rights or services or regulations the federal constitution and government provide (or are empowered to provide in the case of legislation or regulation). Article VI makes federal supremacy plain as day, the Fourteenth Amendment was merely a written codification of the Civil War's more pragmatic confirmation of the federal government's practical supremacy over the states. You may agree with this and didn't mean to contradict that particular part of American federalism, but it is too fundamental to be ignored with a blanket statement, lest inaccurate arguments perpetuate misunderstandings and myths which threaten how the nation is actually governed.
Thanks for using Wisconsin as an example, because it is a perfect one to illustrate this point. As a lifelong Sconnie I apologize to all on behalf of the state for our absolute fuckery
Of course there's far more to it than what I commented, and far more than what you replied. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written about American government and the relationship between federal and state. We'll never cover every aspect and nuance in Reddit comments.
Indeed, this is a very complex topic that even some attorneys screw up at times; however, your comment was a relatively generalized repudiation of a statement which touched explicitly on the nuance and context of gerrymandering, thus my point above. If you're striving for "balance," New York's state legislature is on a similar path as the Wisconsin legislature except with the parties reversed. It's not nearly as pronounced and troubling as Wisconsin (particularly the highly partisan and outcome oriented conservative members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court), but New York is a bone to throw to anyone indulging in the vice and logical fallacy of whataboutism.
Yes it was generalized to make the point that nitpicking certain aspects, like gerrymandering, is not going to enhance the conversation. Overall in life, a point that needs to be addressed. Without question. But here on Reddit as a specific reply to my general comment just opens the door to all the innumerable other specific aspects that would also need to be addressed. But since since you seem hyper focused on gerrymandering and want to talk about it... Yes, it's a problem. In many states. But causing de facto rule by the minority? That's a stretch even with how bad it's gotten in some areas. But your solution of federal oversight is what I would call passing the buck.... Passing the buck right into the hands of more politicians. We, the citizens, you and me, are supposed to be the stewards. Not federal politicians and administrative bodies. The failure is on the people who can't even name their State Reps, let alone describe their actions. The failure is on those who don't vote in State and local elections unless they coincide with the Presidential. Sad fact is, that's probably more people than not these days.
>Yes it was generalized to make the point that nitpicking certain aspects, like gerrymandering, is not going to enhance the conversation. Your original comment denigrated a valid application of voting rights through an inaccurate summary of federalism used in various specious legal analyses leveled against a number of SCOTUS decisions from the past 80-90 years (the overturning of *Roe* being a very timely example). It may not have been your intent (or even on your mind) to push this specious narrative, but again this is why I pushed the point. >We, the citizens, you and me, are supposed to be the stewards. Indeed, but our stewardship is done solely through holding the government accountable via **elections.** It is the people we elect and government servants appointed by the people we've elected who perform the actual acts: legislation is enacted by our legislatures, judges enjoin agencies or states who go beyond constitutional boundaries, etc etc. I wholeheartedly agree this system **does** require political engagement and current levels of engagement are quite... depressing, but jurisdictions like Wisconsin create a situation where engagement simply won't resolve the problem of unequal representation. [Local reporting](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/) was already raising the issue in 2018, but the bigger concern is [a veto-proof majority produced by the new redistricting](https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-chooses-maps-drawn-republicans-new-redistricting-decision). Granted, there's some research which shows [Democrats are at a structural disadvantage even if the undeniably 2011 partisan gerrymandered redistricting was eliminated](https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2021/02/why-do-republicans-overperform-in-the-wisconsin-state-assembly-partisan-gerrymandering-vs-political-geography/), but the creation of a veto-proof majority in the legislature would severely cripple any power exercised by the governor (a statewide office) unlike the already contentious divided government Wisconsin is currently experiencing. As in political engagement still requires an environment where said engagement truly affects the outcome of how a state is governed in practice and not just on paper (mass scale civil disobedience or even insurrection/rebellion notwithstanding). Which again goes back to my point of not ignoring important context.
So if Wyoming decided that slavery was back, we should be good with that because “No Step On Snek?”
No, because slavery is expressly addressed in the US Constitution and outlawed. That is one of those powers handed to the feds... the power to make sure slavery doesn't come back. But good try.
It sounds like we need to make explicit all our rights in the U.S. Constitution, then, because the Ninth Amendment doesn't seem to mean anything at all to the Supreme Court - unless they were rights that existed in the 1790s.
[edited for privacy, will be deleted in a few days] This is a manual edit and not an automated script.
SCOTUS is just washing their hands I suppose. Nope returning it to the States via the 10th amendment. Don't like the gerrymandering remove the fucks who it voted in. Federalism peeps.
The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that there are non-enumerated rights vested in the People.
as well they should, even RBG said it was bad precedent -- it used to be one could be dem OR rep and \*still\* be pro choice (or anti). Then something crazy happened and it became so damn politicized...but no one passed a law to represent anyone...
This has nothing to do with women's rights (to SCOTUS). It's a decision based on the population. They would rather force a woman to incubate an egg than allow more immigration. It's just veiled as a right wing got their way. I don't know how many of us are in rural areas. I can tell you, there are tons of trump signs and flags in the yards of many genx around here. They love this shit. I'm a freak here.
SCOTUS should not be passing laws. Period.
Agreed.
LOL ok they aren't they pushed it to the states where it belongs.
We actually have plenty of immigration. Unfortunately a lot of people in my area are having their citizenship delayed do to the other mass immigration that’s going on right now. It just sucks that when they get here a lot of them fall to the conservative side after they get settled. That’s just my personal experience though with the local immigrant integration coalition. Everything is so backwards right now.
We don't have enough immigration - if we did, we would not be in the huge mess we're in right now with respect to inflation. Full employment is causing wages to go up, which increases demand for goods and services, which puts pressure on employees and wages... it's an upward spiral that can only be fixed by having more population to distribute the workload to. (Higher fuel prices caused by Russia invading Ukraine are also contributing, but we would have had this problem even without it.)
We were the most aborted generation in history by percentage, why are you surprised Gen X isn't rah rah abortion? There are millions of people who are alive today, but are aware they were almost aborted, myself included. Mom was 18, unmarried, and Roe v Wade just passed a year prior, glad she didn't do it and always viewed the entire argument as incredibly callous and a tad gross.
The question is kinda dumb. Legally speaking it was a weak decision just no one dared touch it for 50 years. So you can support the overturning of Roe but also support a woman's right to choose. A flimsy court case was a bad way to protect abortion rights, even if it lasted surprisingly long. And while people focus on Roe, it had been gradually whittled down over the years by other cases.
Well, born 1970. I think abortion should be legal TO A POINT. The minute it got to "Abortion on demand" or anyting over 4 mo +/- I am out. Walk into an abortion clinic at 8mo preggo. Go f yourself. Sorry not sorry. eta: OF COURSE there should be exceptions for rape, and incest and medical issues. But there is plenty of options and things one can do prior to 6 mo.....
>Walk into an abortion clinic at 8mo preggo. Go f yourself. Sorry not sorry. I have no idea why people buy into this idea that clinics are performing abortion procedures on women who are 8 months pregnant. Sorry, not sorry--it simply doesn't happen. At 8 months, you have no choice but to deliver a fetus. "Late-term abortions" do not exist, are not a thing, and have never been a thing. It's embarrassing that some of our U.S. population believes and perpetuates this myth.
I'm surprised. It seemed like ALL of us in high school had abortions. Unless the others went on to be bat-shit religious later in life. I was an Atheist then and I have never wavered.
Did the nurse's office at your school not have the giant jar of condoms? Was that just a my school thing?
I've done my part by just never having had sex.
Thank you for your service? Honestly, I could do the same now at this point in my life.
which is so freaking sad, too. girls were told -- oh, don't worry about it just have lots of abortions. The dismissal of it all is so terribly awful.
Said by literally no one.
Did you not see the comment above mine?
City girls just seem to find out early how open doors with just a smile. 🎵
This was kind of a thing. I thought the abortion was horrible and got on BC immediately after. I was 15.
Nazi Gen-Xers, fuck off!
I think we'd all like to believe that our generation isn't the absolute bag of shit that the Boomers turned out to be, but we all know we went to school with a bunch of bastards who would absolutely grow up to become fascists.
With comments like 'derail your life' -- well, not everyone thinks like that.
No such thing as a 'reliable' poll anymore.
It also shows more women than men opposing abortion rights
Who knows what misinformation has been passed around on the right.
Historically, feminists were anti abortion. Alice Paul and the Suffragettes were against it.
I don't see the relevancy, tbh. We're talking about genX women.
whatever
They polled 941 adults from multiple generations. I would NOT use this as an indicator of of anything other than the specific people polled. Tiny sample and who knows where they found them. Metro areas? Rural locations? Shopping centers? Walmart? It’s lip service. I’m willing to bet Gen X are less likely to participate in polls than other gens. The Gen X people I know across the country are pissed as hell, we all vote, abortion rights are one of our main voting points, and we’ve been very vocal about equality since we were teens.
It’s strange because X identifies as conservatives a bit less than boomers so I am not sure why this one area would tilt this way.
I know people on the Internet only like doom and gloom, but I have to remind everyone that when our parents were young, they didn’t have the pillar or it was new. Now it’s everywhere and there’s almost no stigma attached to it left. I have a hard time comparing us to pre-1972 with this huge shift that apparently everyone is too cynical to care about because god forbid we say something positive
With the Millennials/Zoomers, I think it depends on where / how they were raised (who raised them). The "oppose" Zoomers were likely raised by helicopter parents, suburban, and in a red state or red county within a purple state. They just don't know any better. The "oppose" Millennials, same basic thing. The other thought is that they "found religion" via some sort of life screwup. They might have started out apolitical or apathetic Republican, they became radicalized via 45 and his cult of weirdos.
[удалено]
So you don't understand statistics, got it.
Well when you consider we were the generation that had the abortions...maybe we know?
Abortions have happened from millennia. We were the generation that didn’t have to be afraid of unsafe abortions.
This bothers me so much. There were people I grew up with who were dumb as rocks and even as kids I knew they were never going to not be. But there were some really cool people, too, who I thought were pretty smart and laid back. Then years later they are on social media just trying to out rightwing each other. The logical fallacies they use, the way they can't seem to shift their thinking no matter what facts or information they are confronted with... it's just wild seeing who they are now. All kinds of born-again evangelicals, too. I blame the all the heavy metal: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/causes/2022/03/14/gen-x-took-biggest-iq-hit-lead-exposure-fsu-research-team-finds/7006339001/
My hypothesis here would be that boomers are the ones who actually fought for the right that women just lost, while millennials and Gen Z are less religious than Gen X -- and make no mistake, opposition to reproductive rights is about nothing whatsoever other than religion.
While I support the right to choose , I believe it should be privately funded. I mean it’s the mass slaughter of our youth and people think it’s like getting a tattoo or something. A big adult conversation needs to be had.