Biden signs order on abortion access, urges women to vote in November

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
30,209
8,170
113
President Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday to protect access to abortion as he faced mounting pressure from fellow Democrats to be more forceful on the subject after the Supreme Court ended a constitutional right to the procedure two weeks ago.


The actions he outlined are intended to mitigate some potential penalties women seeking abortion may face after the ruling but are limited in their ability to safeguard access to abortion nationwide. Biden acknowledged the limitations facing his office, saying it would require an act of Congress to restore access to abortion in the more than a dozen states where strict limits or total bans have gone into effect in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. About a dozen more states are set to impose additional restrictions in the coming weeks and months.

“The fastest way to restore Roe is to pass a national law,” Biden said. ““The challenge is go out and vote. For God’s sake there is an election in November. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote!”

Biden formalized instructions to the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to push back on efforts to limit the ability of women to access federally approved abortion medication or to travel across state lines to access clinical abortion services. He was joined by Vice President Kamala Harris, HHS secretary Xavier Becerra and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in the Roosevelt Room as he signed the order.

His executive order also directs agencies to work to educate medical providers and insurers about how and when they are required to share privileged patient information with authorities–an effort to protect women who seek or utilize abortion services. He is also asking the Federal Trade Commission to take steps to protect the privacy of those seeking information about reproductive care online and establish an interagency task force to coordinate federal efforts to safeguard access to abortion.

The order, after the high court’s June 24 ruling that ended the nationwide right to abortion and left it to states to determine whether or how to allow the procedure, comes as Biden has faced criticism from some in his own party for not acting with more urgency to protect women’s access to abortion. The decision in the case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Since the decision, Biden has stressed that his ability to protect abortion rights by executive action is limited without congressional action, and stressed that Democrats do not have the votes in the current Congress to do so.

“We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house to codify Roe,” he said. “Your vote can make that a reality.”

He predicted that women would turn out in “record numbers” in frustration over the court’s decision, and said he expected “millions and millions of men will be taking up the fight beside them.”

On Friday, he repeated his sharp criticism of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in striking down what had been a half-century constitutional right to abortion.

“Let’s be clear about something from the very start, this was not a decision driven by the Constitution,” Biden said, accusing the court’s majority of “playing fast and loose with the facts.”

“Ultimately, Congress is going to have to act to codify Roe into federal law,” Biden said last week during a virtual meeting with Democratic governors.

The tasking to the Justice Department and HHS pushes the agencies to fight in court to protect women, but it conveys no guarantees that the judicial system will take their side against potential prosecution by states that have moved to outlaw abortion.

“President Biden has made clear that the only way to secure a woman’s right to choose is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe as federal law,” the White House said. “Until then, he has committed to doing everything in his power to defend reproductive rights and protect access to safe and legal abortion.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju called Biden’s order “an important first step in restoring the rights taken from millions of Americans by the Supreme Court.”

But Lawrence Gostin, who runs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health at Georgetown Law, described Biden’s plans as “underwhelming.”

“There’s nothing that I saw that would affect the lives of ordinary poor women living in red states,” he said.

Gostin encouraged Biden to take a more forceful approach toward ensuring access to medication abortion across the country and said Medicaid should consider covering transportation to other states for the purposes of getting abortions.

Gostin said, “We basically have two Americas.” There’s one where people have access to a full range of healthcare, and “another where citizens don’t have the same rights to the safe and effective treatments as the rest of the country.”

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told the AP that the agency was looking at how Medicaid could cover travel for abortions, along with a range of other proposals, but acknowledged that “Medicaid’s coverage of abortion is extremely limited.”

Biden’s move was the latest scramble to protect the data privacy of those contemplating or seeking abortion, as regulators and lawmakers reckon with the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling.

The decision by the court is expected to make abortion illegal in over a dozen states and severely restricted in others. Privacy experts say that could make women vulnerable because their personal data could be used to surveil pregnancies and shared with police or sold to vigilantes. Online searches, location data, text messages and emails, and even apps that track periods could be used to prosecute people who seek an abortion _ or medical care for a miscarriage _ as well as those who assist them, experts say.

Privacy advocates are watching for possible new moves by law enforcement agencies in affected states– serving subpoenas, for example, on tech companies such as Google, Apple, Bing, Facebook’s Messenger and WhatsApp, services like Uber and Lyft, and internet service providers including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast. Local prosecutors may go before sympathetic judges to obtain search warrants for users’ data.

Last month four Democratic lawmakers asked the FTC to investigate Apple and Google for allegedly deceiving millions of mobile phone users by enabling the collection and sale of their personal data to third parties.

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
101,454
28,514
113
Must mean its time for a new fake Hunter video to be found on the laptop of death.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,337
6,156
113
Just to make this easier for later comments from certain people on the board, I'm gonna post the flowchart now.

View attachment 156039
Why don't you explain how electing them with codify anything when they have the bypartisan votes to get things like rape/incest exceptions in now?

IMO Biden is a liar. So is Nancy. They would rather fundraise than do something real.

They have truly failed on this one.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,261
122,850
113
Why don't you explain how electing them with codify anything when they have the bypartisan votes to get things like rape/incest exceptions in now?

IMO Biden is a liar. So is Nancy. They would rather fundraise than do something real.

They have truly failed on this one.
Wouldn't those exceptions get blocked by the filibuster?
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
Wouldn't those exceptions get blocked by the filibuster?
Considering his sentence is incoherent, I'm not even sure what he is asking, honestly.

I think he is saying that there are enough votes to get "rape/incest exceptions in" and therefore that they haven't already passed that means they aren't doing anything?
I'm not sure what he is talking about though - rape and incest exceptions to what?
Does he mean that there are 60 senate votes on the record as in favor of a bill and the Dems aren't putting the bill to the floor?

I have no idea.
I just know that he always knows that Biden and Pelosi are liars and doing it wrong. (See flowcharts.)
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,261
122,850
113
Considering his sentence is incoherent, I'm not even sure what he is asking, honestly.
I think he is saying that there are enough votes to get "rape/incest exceptions in" and therefore that they haven't already passed that means they aren't doing anything?
I'm not sure what he is talking about though - rape and incest exceptions to what?
Does he mean that there are 60 senate votes on the record as in favor of a bill and the Dems aren't putting the bill to the floor?
I have no idea.
I just know that he always knows that Biden and Pelosi are liars and doing it wrong. (See flowcharts.)
I would be fucking SHOCKED if there are any GOP senate votes for a federal pro choice rights bill. Manchin and a couple of other Dems wouldn't even support it. It's political suicide for any Repug to vote for it and they can easily posture by saying "It's up to the states."
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,337
6,156
113
Considering his sentence is incoherent, I'm not even sure what he is asking, honestly.

I think he is saying that there are enough votes to get "rape/incest exceptions in" and therefore that they haven't already passed that means they aren't doing anything?
I'm not sure what he is talking about though - rape and incest exceptions to what?
Does he mean that there are 60 senate votes on the record as in favor of a bill and the Dems aren't putting the bill to the floor?

I have no idea.
I just know that he always knows that Biden and Pelosi are liars and doing it wrong. (See flowcharts.)
There are 60+ senate votes to vote in a bill to protect the right of women to abortions nation wide in the case of rape/incest.

Stop splitting hairs, you know what I'm saying.

Now, why don't you explain what voting in Dems will do in the fall if they refused to do it when the had 60 seats in 2009, and refuse to even start with that basic protection now.

Do you believe that even if they hold the seats now or add some they will break the filibuster? Or do something else. What do you think they will do?
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
There are 60+ senate votes to vote in a bill to protect the right of women to abortions nation wide in the case of rape/incest.

Stop splitting hairs, you know what I'm saying.
No, I often don't, because you just tend to spout whatever Narrative you've been fed.

Why do you think there are 60 plus votes for this?
What law do you think would be passed?
Are you arguing that if the House submitted a bill saying "No matter what the law of a given state is, there is an abortion exception for rape and incest" it would have 60 votes?
Who is on the record agreeing to that?
Is there such a law written?
Or are there people who have said that maybe they could consider such a thing, depending on the language?
I've seen nothing of this, but then I don't follow every single piece of news on the internet.
So explain to me what - exactly - you are talking about and then we can talk.

Now, why don't you explain what voting in Dems will do in the fall if they refused to do it when the had 60 seats in 2009
Because it isn't 2009 and politics aren't static.
I'm surprised you find the concept of time difficult.

Do you believe that even if they hold the seats now or add some they will break the filibuster? Or do something else. What do you think they will do?
They don't hold the seats now.
Do I think that if the Democrats have the votes to do a thing they want to do they will do it?
Yes.
Getting people to break the filibuster is very hard for the people who grew up with it as normal - more people elected who don't think it is a sacred cow will make it easier to break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bver_hunter

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,337
6,156
113
No, I often don't, because you just tend to spout whatever Narrative you've been fed.

Why do you think there are 60 plus votes for this?
What law do you think would be passed?
Are you arguing that if the House submitted a bill saying "No matter what the law of a given state is, there is an abortion exception for rape and incest" it would have 60 votes?
Who is on the record agreeing to that?
Is there such a law written?
Or are there people who have said that maybe they could consider such a thing, depending on the language?
I've seen nothing of this, but then I don't follow every single piece of news on the internet.
So explain to me what - exactly - you are talking about and then we can talk.



Because it isn't 2009 and politics aren't static.
I'm surprised you find the concept of time difficult.



They don't hold the seats now.
Do I think that if the Democrats have the votes to do a thing they want to do they will do it?
Yes.
Getting people to break the filibuster is very hard for the people who grew up with it as normal - more people elected who don't think it is a sacred cow will make it easier to break.
You are naive. They won't do anything. Especially under Biden and Nancy. They haven't even tried.

This is whats so laughable. They didn't do it for 50 years, haven't even tried to now, but gosh darn it, they sent out fundraising emails within hours. But they sure didn't see this coming or have a prepped response beyond this.

And if you don't think voters have noticed you aren't paying attention.

MSM aren't reporting on the votes available. I got it from Breaking Points. Its all backroom info. But please note that the leadership hasn't even tried. They have literally done nothing. Planned nothing.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
MSM aren't reporting on the votes available. I got it from Breaking Points. Its all backroom info.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Oh my god.
So it is purely an unverified narrative that you've accepted because it confirms your priors about Democrats.
Amazing.
You don't even know what this mythical bill would say, but you know they have the votes because of "backroom info".
From Breaking Points no less. Krystal and Saagar.
That's fucking priceless.
:LOL:
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,337
6,156
113
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Oh my god.
So it is purely an unverified narrative that you've accepted because it confirms your priors about Democrats.
Amazing.
You don't even know what this mythical bill would say, but you know they have the votes because of "backroom info".
From Breaking Points no less. Krystal and Saagar.
That's fucking priceless.
:LOL:
Because the MSM s telling the truth?

Once again. Why, when they had 50 years to get this done, should anyone believe that this time they will? What magical wand will they wave in 2023 to solve this?

Fact is you are just full of shit to espouse the Dems have anything remotely resembling a plan to get a nationwide law on abortion. They have nothing now, nothing after the midterms and nothing after 2024. And their own people even know that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: jcpro and Valcazar

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
Because the MSM s telling the truth?
Because Breaking Points is?
Why the fuck would you believe these two chucklefucks about this?

More importantly, even if you do believe that - why do you have no details?
"They have 60 votes to pass a rape/incest exemption" is a meaningless statement on its own, as you know.
Do they have 60 votes for a bill that is on the table?
Or even for a bill that does this in a vague "agreement" but some details about what it leaves alone?
Why aren't those votes public commitments?
Why are Krystal and Saaagar covering up the names of those 60 votes instead of putting pressure on them by revealing this publicly?
Are these "votes" just "I could see my way to finding an agreement on rape/incest" which means they can pull support a the last second?
Are these "votes" along the lines of "If they pass a law nationalizing the abortion ban I would agree to a rape/incest exception"?

Why aren't you asking these obvious questions?

Once again. Why, when they had 50 years to get this done, should anyone believe that this time they will? What magical wand will they wave in 2023 to solve this?
Having the votes.
It isn't a magic wand and the fact you think it is speaks volumes as to why you are so clueless about politics.
Remember, people like you were absolutely against them doing this for years.
It was "special interests" and "culture war" and "not focusing on the economy and class inequality" for years.
Especially since it was guaranteed by the courts so a national law would be redundant.
Fuck, pointing out it was in play for 2016 was "blackmailing" people.
That's not even getting into the nonsensical idea that all elected Democrats agreed with it for 50 years as opposed to there being a shift in opinion in the country and the party over time.
Or pretending that the Democrats secretly controlled Congress for 50 years and with filibuster-proof majorities in the senate that whole time, too.

Fact is you are just full of shit to espouse the Dems have anything remotely resembling a plan to get a nationwide law on abortion. They have nothing now, nothing after the midterms and nothing after 2024. And their own people even know that.
I didn't espouse that they have a plan to get a nationwide law on abortion other than "have enough votes to be able to fight out the details on it".
I pointed out that your statement about "they have the votes now" was both incoherently written and not very convincing on its face about whether it is true or what it actually says about Dem leadership.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Butler1000

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
15,318
2,663
113
Ghawar
I thought I was going to comment on how Biden a devout Catholic
might have provoked the wrath of his God for giving easy access to the
means to destroy unborn soul. But the flowchart in the guide isn't helpful.

Just to make this easier for later comments from certain people on the board, I'm gonna post the flowchart now.

View attachment 156039
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
I thought I was going to comment on how Biden a devout Catholic
might have provoked the wrath of his God for giving easy access to the
means to destroy unborn soul. But the flowchart in the guide isn't helpful.
That flowchart is only helpful for the "Why isn't he doing anything" crowd.
Board members who aren't going that route in their criticism would need something else.
I'm sure there is a flow chart for you out there, though.
Just keep looking.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,337
6,156
113
Because Breaking Points is?
Why the fuck would you believe these two chucklefucks about this?

More importantly, even if you do believe that - why do you have no details?
"They have 60 votes to pass a rape/incest exemption" is a meaningless statement on its own, as you know.
Do they have 60 votes for a bill that is on the table?
Or even for a bill that does this in a vague "agreement" but some details about what it leaves alone?
Why aren't those votes public commitments?
Why are Krystal and Saaagar covering up the names of those 60 votes instead of putting pressure on them by revealing this publicly?
Are these "votes" just "I could see my way to finding an agreement on rape/incest" which means they can pull support a the last second?
Are these "votes" along the lines of "If they pass a law nationalizing the abortion ban I would agree to a rape/incest exception"?

Why aren't you asking these obvious questions?



Having the votes.
It isn't a magic wand and the fact you think it is speaks volumes as to why you are so clueless about politics.
Remember, people like you were absolutely against them doing this for years.
It was "special interests" and "culture war" and "not focusing on the economy and class inequality" for years.
Especially since it was guaranteed by the courts so a national law would be redundant.
Fuck, pointing out it was in play for 2016 was "blackmailing" people.
That's not even getting into the nonsensical idea that all elected Democrats agreed with it for 50 years as opposed to there being a shift in opinion in the country and the party over time.
Or pretending that the Democrats secretly controlled Congress for 50 years and with filibuster-proof majorities in the senate that whole time, too.



I didn't espouse that they have a plan to get a nationwide law on abortion other than "have enough votes to be able to fight out the details on it".
I pointed out that your statement about "they have the votes now" was both incoherently written and not very convincing on its face about whether it is true or what it actually says about Dem leadership.
They had the votes on 2009. Didn't do it. And a president willing to sign it. And you have said nothing to make anyone think will if they do again . Nothing.

They have no interest in solving the problem, because then they can't fundraise off of it, nor use it as a blugeon to get votes. The only thing they did in the wake of it was a fundraising/vote begging email. And now weeks later a sliver of an executive order that if they had done a remote amount of prep in light of the leak could have been done day of and not weeks later.

Why are you defending their response and actions when they have clearly been so pathetic?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
30,209
8,170
113
They had the votes on 2009. Didn't do it. And a president willing to sign it. And you have said nothing to make anyone think will if they do again . Nothing.

They have no interest in solving the problem, because then they can't fundraise off of it, nor use it as a blugeon to get votes. The only thing they did in the wake of it was a fundraising/vote begging email. And now weeks later a sliver of an executive order that if they had done a remote amount of prep in light of the leak could have been done day of and not weeks later.

Why are you defending their response and actions when they have clearly been so pathetic?
What have votes in "2009" got anything feasible to do with the overturning of Roe v Wade?

For once blame the retarded Republicans and the sly Republican Supreme Court appointees who under oath promised to uphold the Constitution as such. When asked about Roe v Wade they categorically lied about it!!


Trump and the Republican Congress as well as Governors of the various States involved should for once be blamed. PERIOD!!

Anyway, where do your Krystal and Saagar bullshitters mention anything about "60 Votes in 2009" here? All they do is to promote the confusion and chaos in the USA that it has created in the video below:


So butler in this day and age, for once do post a link where Krystal and Saager attack the Democrats, Biden, Obama and Pelosi for doing nothing about Roe and Wade in 2009?
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
37,050
74,940
113
They had the votes on 2009.
No they didn't.
They had 60 seats in 2009, not 60 votes to codify Roe v Wade.

They also would have been viciously attacked for doing abortion rights instead of the financial crisis or the ACA. You would have been right there attacking them for it f you were around back then.

And a president willing to sign it. And you have said nothing to make anyone think will if they do again .
Have you tried proof reading?

They have no interest in solving the problem, because then they can't fundraise off of it, nor use it as a blugeon to get votes.
Oh, we are safe then.
As you know, the GOP had "no interest in solving the problem, because then they can't fundraise off of it, nor use it as a blugeon to get votes."

That was the main line people used to tell us abortion rights were safe. So obviously it is true now.

The only thing they did...
See earlier flowchart.

Why are you defending their response and actions when they have clearly been so pathetic?
Because you aren't a serious person with serious criticism. You're a sadly predictable hack who follows the flowchart. (I could but the other one up if you like.)

Because the entirety of your position is "Democrats suck and what they do is bad" there is no point in engaging with your criticisms, even on the rate cases you accidentally stumble on something partially correct.

Therefore when you go off, I just poke holes in your narrative because it is good practice for seeing what idiocy I might have to deal with from friends in the real world who sometimes fall for these traps. Since you fall for all of them, I get a heads up about what storyline I can expect to hear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts