350

Biden’s top priority for a second term: restoring abortion rights (www.politico.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

144 comments fedilink hide all child comments

…

“The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Fulks said.

Biden has been poised to run on what has been described as the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate as he and his allies look to notch a victory in the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Last month, Biden seized on a case in Texas, where a woman, Kate Cox, was denied an abortion despite the risk to her life posed by her pregnancy.

“No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said of the case. “But that is exactly what happened in Texas thanks to Republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. This should never happen in America, period.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 77 points 10 months ago

Party spent decades not codifying it...

Didn't fight for Obama's SC seat, just accepted that the next president would pick it to try and help Clinton...

Took no actions since Roe was overturned...

But we're supposed to believe next term it'll be fixed?

They haven't even held a vote yet so voters will know what Dems are going to vote against it.

Why would anyone take Bidens word on this? Isn't the safe bet to assume the same thing will happen as the last campaign promises? Meaning as soon as he assumes office Biden will either "look into it" or he'll say there's not enough D votes so he can't try.

And the voters still won't know if their representatives would actually support party platform.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago

Please identify the Congressional term that had a pro-choice majority that could have passed federal abortion protections but did not. Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.

No one who's complained about the Dems apparently just deciding to miss what would be one of their greatest political victories for shits and giggles has ever been able to identify when this would have actually passed, but hey, maybe you'll be the first one.

[+] cosmic_slate@dmv.social 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago

And several of those Senators in that supermajority were against abortion rights. I can name them if you actually care.

Mate, I literally warned you against this. Two of those Senators were from god damned Arkansas, one from Indiana, and one from Louisiana. This was not the Democratic Party of the 2020s. Several of them voted for a federal ban on late-term abortions and bans for the use of any federal funding for abortions. Our good friend Joe Manchin was also in that majority.

Please though, do try again. You seemed very confident that this pro-abortion majority definitely existed, so I'll wait.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 13 points 10 months ago

Two things.

One: even removing those listed senators from the supermajority, that still leaves a majority.

Two: their original comment lamented that the Democrats never even held a vote when they had control with the intent of putting their votes on the record, so that voters would know who actually supports their rights.

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Man if only there was some other piece of legislation they got passed during that 2 months... Maybe the largest healthcare overhaul in generations?

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Fucking breadcrumbs. Banks and insurance companies benefited more from Obama's presidency than the American people.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

The one that said it was illegal to not buy health insurance? The "compromise" that turned it into a huge win for the insurance industry? And it still sounds like people are going bankrupt because of medical issues or having treatments blocked because some insurance asshole disagrees with their doctor.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Yes, the one that was neutered completely by republicans which was somehow Obama's fault for doing something instead of nothing, the very thing being condemned in this thread

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 38 points 10 months ago

Abortion rights are super fucking important, but frankly, I’ll just settle for “not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, which the Democrats are basically world champions at.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 21 points 10 months ago

He's working really fucking hard at ensuring his defeat with Netanyahu's help. I'd be disgusted with his self-sabotage even if I didn't care about Palestinians.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Literally the only way he could try and lose more voters is to go full beto and tell Americans hes coming for their guns. You can be mad at the fact, but if you deny that that would lose him votes you're delusional.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, his administration has done lots of things within their power to help protect reproductive rights. You're not wrong they'd need the senate to codify roe v wade or even be able to get a judge on the supreme court. They'd probably need to end the filibuster to get it through too.

Here's a summary of some of the executive actions they have taken. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html

His administration has also launched multiple lawsuits across the country trying to protect abortion rights, and defended against Republican lawsuits trying to restrict them further. Having all these federal agencies making rules and regulations trying to support rather than restrict reproductive rights is still important.

So you're right that he can't codify roe v wade nationally without senate and house control as well as getting rid of the filibuster or some miracle cooperation by republicans. But all of the executive actions, the resources of the justice department, etc could be used to attack reproductive rights rather than defend them if a republican were to be elected.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I’d argue he may even have gone beyond his power. While I wish he could have done more, an awful lot of what he completed is through executive decision, despite Congress. It seems like he’s had to go way beyond the norm for us as a democracy (while avoiding the craziness on the Trump regime). I only hope he hasn’t planted the seeds to increase authoritarianism, for whenever in the future someone I disagree with inevitably gets elected

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago

The right says that banning guns and drugs would not help as they would be on the black market. I wonder when they would come to realize the same situation with abortion.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

It feels so much like Biden is fucking with us... There's a whole year left in this term!! You think i don't see this? You think we're actually that stupid? I want to at least be lied to less obviously!

God what a slap in the face

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 24 points 10 months ago

I mean, what's he supposed to do right now? Republicans still control both houses of congress (or, at least, hold enough seats to render both houses impotent). The upcoming congressional elections matter as much as (or potentially more than) the presidential election.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

And next term, when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, he also won't be able to do anything about abortion.

This is why I've stopped believing presidential candidates when they say they're gonna do things. They're one branch of government, so there's only so much they could possibly do, and even that will take years.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

He had zero issues going around Congress to "sell" weapons to Israel to be used in an o going genocide...

Bonus points:

They "bought" the weapons with American taxpayers money after Biden had just given it to them.

Why can Biden go around Congress for that, but not for what would help Americans?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Because the president can't create a constitutional amendment. They are not a member of the legislative branch. He can provide emergency military support, being the leader of the executive branch (head of the military)

I don't agree with what he did, but it is under his perview apparently. Much like he can send our troops to fight for ~90 days before needing congressional approval. Essentially creating a situation that you are already in a war by the time congress can say no

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

He can fix the supreme Court all on his own by adding members, then the case can be brought up again.

But let me guess, you think if Dems do that, Republicans will somehow do even more of what they're already doing?

So we're going to ignore the stolen SC, because if we take it back legally, they might steal it again?

And people wonder why 1/3 of the country don't vote.

Only one side is actually fighting, the other wants to pretend there's no war because then people will ask them why they let it get this bad

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Yeah, I suspect they'll have no problem getting those new judges confirmed through the Senate. Genius play.

I get that you're frustrated. We all are. But attacking the people who are mostly on your side instead of the people actively trying to hurt you doesn't help.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Pyramid8058@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

The number of Supreme Court justices is set by statute. The president cannot add more justices without the support of Congress.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Steve@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They did nothing when the decision was leaked.
Nothing when it was official.
Nothing in the years since.
Why?

So they could use it as campaign chip in this election.
Fuck off.

Both parties use their constituency as pawns, rather than employers. It's why we all need to support Represent Us and the Forward Party who are trying to make our representatives actually represent us.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

Since 2023 the Democrats haven't had a majority in the House and prior to that they only had a pseudo-majority in the Senate because of Manchin and Sinema. They passed the Right to Contraception Act and it died in the Senate. They passed the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 and it was voted downin the Senate (also get fucked Manchin). Ensuring Access to Abortion Act passed and died in the Senate. Biden, via the Pentagon, is reimbursing members of the military for travel to seek abortion.

You want them to do more? Get them a real majority in both chambers. Granted, they squandered previous majorities by not codifying abortion access but as I recall the last big, heavily opposed bill they passed (Obamacare) still only made it through with a slim margin and if abortion access was a part of that bill it may not have passed.

[-] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 10 points 10 months ago

To say they did nothing just isn't true. In all of 20 seconds of searching you could have found this https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/

Maybe they could have done more? Sure.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Just like he did everything in his power to ~~tackle student loans~~ send weapons to israel.

[-] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago

"Restoring Roe isn’t the only item on Biden’s to-do list. In a second term, the president would aim to “finish the job,” on a slate of priorities his administration has already begun pushing for, Fulks said, including banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, cutting the cost of insulin and expanding student loan forgiveness."

This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.

[-] Someonelemmy@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He did cut the cost of insulin, and it kicked in Jan 1st.

He did push student loan forgiveness and the SCOTUS knocked it down after a Republican lawsuit.

More.... https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2023/10/why-dont-bidens-political-wins-register-with-voters/675547/

load more comments (14 replies)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren't holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.

load more comments (30 replies)

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Abortion, guns, medical costs, student loans.

It's more a list of generally winning issues for Democrats to be trotted out ever 2-4 years. With the added 'benefit' of Republicans fucking up abortion rights so bad that now it's a flagship issue for Dems more than it has been since Roe.

[-] joenforcer@midwest.social 10 points 10 months ago

Honestly, Republicans fucked this up for themselves. Abortion was the classic wedge issue. Single-issue voters that wanted abortion banned would come out every 2-4 years to vote for the candidate who claimed to be pro-life, who would then make a token effort then shrug when nothing changed, rinse-repeat. Now, those voters have no reason to come out and people that are actually affected negatively have EVERY reason to come out.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Hold medical legislation hostage?

Classy.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024

350 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4571 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News