this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
189 points (99.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3477 readers
794 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes/pics of text

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.

Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that “Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion.”

“It’s not,” Wyden continued. “What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations.”

“The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans,” the senator added. “Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along.”

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

I don't even think they need to use the back door. Dems will let them rail it right through the front door.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

To me, this sounds like them purposefully sabotaging the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't want funding passed. Their whole thing is making the government not function so they can remove pieces of it and take over. "If congress can't function then I guess the president must take over." It's similar to Hitler's rise to power, when they gave the chancellor power to pass laws without the Reichstag.

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Holy forking shirtballs.

Me two days ago: We should check US News.

Me to me: Why? Their supreme court blocked food to the poor. What more shocking developments do you expect in the next 48 hours?

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Son of a nice lady!

Jokes aside. I'm going to preface this by saying fuck the Trump administration for trying to starve people like my family and fuck the Democrats for capitulating to them. But my understanding on this is actually that "fully funding" SNAP for the entire country would take more than what that contingency fund had and that was the main driver behind the block. The plan was to send out partial payments from the fund but some states started moving faster than others and got their whole allotments. Probably not the best idea to just let as I understand it like 2/3s of enough money be first come first served. So the order got blocked temporarily while some procedural stuff got ironed out.

Like, entirely fuck the Trump administration for creating this problem. But if the stuff I'm reading is accurate, not blocking it to give the court a chance to figure out procedure stuff could have been a massive shit show.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh, they've tricked you with their hand waving bullshit unfortunately

They had enough money to fully fund the program for about 2 weeks. So two weeks of food now, then in another two weeks we can work something out and they can get the other half in time. Or nothing is worked out, and so they get half of November now

What the Trump admin wanted to do is split it in half, give them one quarter in November and one quarter in December

It all sounds very reasonable and procedural until you think about what that would mean for individuals dependent on it. It means they would become food insecure now instead of in a couple weeks

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm one of the people dependent on it. Yes I'm aware of the bullshit excuses they're peddling. But unfortunately the way our legal system is structured, it doesn't fucking matter that everyone with half a braincell knows they're lying because it doesn't automatically force them to do the right thing.

Last I heard, 8 States managed to get their full November allotment out before the stay. what happens to everyone else when the fucking liars get to reasonably claim "oh no we have no more money" and it doesn't matter that we know they're lying because they're still paying ICE because that's not what they were ordered to do? Then they have to start a whole new set of fucking litigation and it gets bogged down longer.

So while I'm happy for the people who were able to get paid out their SNAP and would totally love to be able to buy my kids food because we're really struggling right now, I cannot give the slightest fuck about a 2 day stay while the lower court figures out their shit.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My understanding is that the states that fully funded it did it with their own money and the assumption they'd get it back down the line

Which is why only 8 states did it

Also, Trump 1 did exactly what the court ordered them to do. There was no confusion about the procedure

The Supreme Court decided that the lower court order was invalid because it didn't have a time frame. That's a bullshit justification

This was really a case about presidential power

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I was seeing conflicting things about that. I saw some things saying there were States trying to shift funds around to pay SNAP recipients, then others saying it was USDA money that the administration was trying to claw back before the whole stay, order getting reaffirmed, then last night the dems voting to open the government. So I'm not sure how that actually shakes out.

My understanding though about the stay was that it wasn't the whole court, just KBJ because she handles such things for that district. That it was set to expire 48 hours after the lower court issued their ruling on the broader appeal which they did a couple hours later on Friday(declined the appeal) from what I remember reading and the stay expired yesterday and today the original court reaffirmed the funding order.

That's my understanding of where things sit at this time. Not sure where any of this lands with the dems caving on ending the shutdown though.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When it's unclear and muddy like that, someone is lying. It's why billionaire controlled media is such a problem

But yeah, it looks like it's cut and dry - the 8 States are just using their own funds, probably because they were the only ones with the flexibility in their budget

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Idk, the list I saw last was:

Alaska
California
Illinois
Louisiana
Nevada
Oregon
Vermont
Wisconsin

I'm not super knowledgeable about all of these states, it's pretty conceivable that California or Nevada might be able to shift things around and pay people. But like Louisiana? Pretty sure they get way more from the federal government than they give in taxes. It seems kinda crazy that they'd have the money to fund their own SNAP recipients. According to one of the legal creators I follow the administration was fighting to only pay out the 5 or so billion that the USDA contingency fund had and I guess there are filings that indicate that they have paid out that much.

So it sounds to me like they had intended to just give everybody a pittance, not enough to really do anything as a full fuck you to as many people as possible. Then fucked it up and accidentally released full funds in a free-for-all to states that were able to snap them up quickly enough and between their own budgets and that money those 8 have been able to fully pay out their SNAP recipients.

But as things stand right now KBJ's stay is over, it lasted max 48 hours after the lower court issued their ruling on whether they'd hear the administration's appeal of the orders to fund SNAP. Which it seems that ruling amounted to "Fuck you, pay SNAP. And pay it from your tariff money" basically. I guess the most recent order tells them to fund the rest of the missing SNAP funds from this pool of funds called Section 32 funds which I guess he was trying to take the remaining money out of the Child Nutrition Fund so like the School Lunch program and stuff. So that's a whole different pot of cruelty.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 14 hours ago

Do you know how illegal it is to steal federal funds? It's super extra illegal, control of funding is where most actual federal power lies. The federal government has surprisingly little direct authority over the States, so I find it difficult to believe this, especially since the 8 States announced it was coming out of their own budget

I'm pretty sure this is all just bullshit to muddy the waters. I think any truth in this was coordinated with the States, I don't think they'd reach into the bucket and pull out more than was provisioned to their state

And as far as Louisiana paying it? Not only are they one of the most corrupt states, they're extremely reliant on aid programs. I find it very easy to believe they had money laying around that they repurposed to avoid a massive problem

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They have money to fund their Gestapo; they can fund SNAP. The cruelty is the point.

Imagine defending the Trump administration's bullshit argument to starve citizens. I'd be ashamed.

I'm not defending anything. But there is a little bit more to the discussion on the SNAP stay thing than just saying "court blocked SNAP order"

It's boring, it's stupid, I hate that our fucking courts are structured like this. But the adminstration also can't be allowed to just let the funds be a free for all and just let whoever is able to grab their SNAP funds get food while everyone else now has to sue again to get them to comply with the original order.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They better back out of this shit and burn down the Whitehouse before giving in to the fascist monster.

[–] aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] frunch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They're already on the verge of capitulating... for literally no concessions! Move over Donald Trump, we found a new Art of the Deal 😐

[–] Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Already capitulated actually. Senate voted last night to reopen the government on nothing but vague assurances of a vote on extending the ACA subsidies.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

because AIPIAC/AIRLINES pressured schumer to go pick 8 sacrificial lambs.

Idk the more I think about it the more I think it was more the worry that Trump might actually have been able to whip enough votes to actually get rid of the filibuster. Because I feel like with the air lobby money they'd had to have felt like the easier path for them would have been to get Republicans to agree to the offer that Schumer put on the table the other day right? Like idk maybe they were worried about Trump siccing DoT or whoever on them but I still feel like business wise anybody with half a brain would have seen this backlash coming and how much of a risk that would be to the politicians they've bought and paid for right? Then they've gotta waste all this money fighting the primary challenges or trying to buy whoever unseats the guy they've already bought. So I've gotta feel like the cheapest option for them would be pressuring the Republicans to agree to Schumer's limp dick "deal" he offered the other day and taking whatever retaliation Trump brings on the chin and trying to placate him with another ego donation or something right?

So I'm feeling more and more like it's gotta be that Schumer was worried that Trump might actually have been close to getting Thune to agree to nuke the filibuster.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

🫠

So do we know what the pain point was that finally caused them to cave? Was it air traffic delays/cancellations? We know it wasn't starving people, at very least

I can almost guarantee you they were looking at Thanksgiving travel plans coming up and that was it.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A vote that will never be brought to the floor or just voted down immediately.

Yuuuuuup. But don't worry guys. The Democrats get to write the bill they're going to vote on! That's something, right?

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Thank you Wyden for spotting this! (Yay OR!)

[–] tornavish@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 days ago

Now they want to ban you getting abortion through your butt? 🙃