Texas GOP meets group suggesting death penalty for women who seek abortions

This is finešŸ”„šŸ¶ā˜•šŸ”„@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 309 points –
Texas GOP meets group suggesting death penalty for women who seek abortions
newsweek.com
71

You are viewing a single comment

Roe v. Wade fell during Biden's presidency and the most he did was an executive order for women's health research

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-and-announces-new-actions-to-advance-womens-health-research-and-innovation/

how are you going to advance something that is now not here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

The Catholic Church condemned the ruling by the Supreme Court.[141] Blackmun wrote in his diary, "Abortion flakā€”3 Cardinalsā€”Vaticanā€”Rochester wires!"[141]

John Cardinal Krol, the archbishop of Philadelphia who was also the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Terence Cardinal Cooke, the archbishop of New York, both issued statements condemning the ruling.[175] Krol called the ruling "an unspeakable tragedy for this nation" that "sets in motion developments which are terrifying to contemplate."[175] Cooke called the decision a "horrifying action" and added:[175]

How many millions of children prior to their birth will never live to see the light of today because of the shocking action of the majority of the United States Supreme Court today?[175]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#

Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.

how do the Republicans differ on abortion again?

Roe V Wade was overturned by Supreme Court packed by GOP and Donald Trump. Fuck off with your bullshit.

Don't apologize for Biden. He could have tried to pack the court, he could be given weekly speeches denouncing their decision, he has the IRS and FBI could have made Thomas' and Alito's life a living hell with daily announcements of fresh bribery charges, he could pick a fight with the Catholic Church pointing out that it is a foreign power influencing the US government. Instead he went gently into that good night.

Now will I vote for him? Yes because the alternative is worse. Can I support him? Not for a second.

Wikipedia is now bullshit?

Trumpism was bad but so is Bidenism

Biden is clearly on record saying he agrees with the abortion ban

Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion

Which is... Where exactly?

Your shitty edit does not say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#

Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion

right there him agreeing with the abortion ban plain as day

During Thursdayā€™s speech, Biden deviated from his prepared remarks, skipping over the word ā€œabortionā€ and instead using the phrases ā€œreproductive freedomā€ or ā€œfreedom to choose.ā€

Yes, he is catholic. Yes, most Catholics disagree with abortion. No, Biden doesnā€™t think his religious beliefs should dictate how women live their lives. He literally says it plain as day for even the very stupid among us to understand. Good luck!

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-2024-reproductive-rights-harris-494af752992ba88fa6e3d53fbd54f716

This seems extremely deceptive, possibly deliberately so. Being influenced by catholic teachings does not mean you agree with everything they believe. Even someone who rejects every single moral teaching of the church could still be influenced by them in some ways.

In this case, we donā€™t need to speculate from some vague statement about the church because Biden has explicitly stated he supported roe v wade, has appointed judges that have pursued this pro-choice ideology, and has even stated that he would sign a bill to reinstate the previous protections for women. Such a bill was put forth in congress but was blocked in the senate. He does not have any direct control over this issue, so itā€™s hard for me to see what else he even could have done.

It comes off as very intellectually dishonest to ignore all that and claim heā€™s ā€œclearly on the record saying he supports the abortion banā€ then point to something he didnā€™t even say and is only tangentially related.

PS: There are tons of legitimate criticisms of Biden so itā€™s especially strange to invent ones that are so far from the truth.

Biden being for women's rights would have been a drastic out of common place executive order restoring women's rights instead of one advancing research into a field that requires Roe versus Wade

Executive orders can only interpret and change the execution of federal law. They canā€™t invent new ones. If there were a federal abortion ban in place, Biden could decline to enforce it, though this would not change the actual law and would likely be challenged in court.

The abortion bans are all by state governments which Biden has no authority over. Read up on federalism and the way the US government works. It sounds like some of your frustration stems from a lack of political knowledge. The presidency is not a dictatorship and we do not want it to be. If Biden could restore reproductive rights unilaterally then a republican could also remove them unilaterally, which would be even worse than the current situation.

Please tell me precisely how many justices Biden has appointed vs. the number of justices on the court.

he could have started nominating to expand the court

The president is not a dictator. It doesn't work like that.

Also, do you really think presidents should just be able to change the size of SCOTUS whenever they want to? What if Trump gets in and decides to shrink it to only the conservatives?

he can nominate 100 people today and make the Senate turn down every one

Which they would. So what would that accomplish?

you don't know that

I know enough about our legislature to know that they would not approve 100 SCOTUS justices. I'm not sure why you think they would allow any president to do that unless they were a rubber stamp legislature, which they are not.

they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible

Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?

You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.

of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few

Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.

imagine the immense opportunity. I don't know how they wouldn't all think about the power being given to them. the pool of candidates. the legacy. but Biden won't even nominate 2 more because he doesn't actually care.

12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...
12 more...

This is a prime example of misinformation and propaganda! I'm saving this. This is good.

Wikipedia is now a prime example of misinformation and propaganda?

of course he would skip over saying that

he said he is deeply devoted to Catholicism on record right there on his and the Catholic's Wikipedia page

how else could one look at those facts?

These aren't facts. You're laundering a broken dog whistle through a couple Wikipedia links. Crawl back into your cave you troglodyte.

12 more...