Biden's new Presidential Memorandum

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  one week ago  •  77 comments


Biden's new Presidential Memorandum
Calling on Congress to pass a "reproduction rights bill" will probably ensure that the fucking House of Reprehensibles will not even vote on it.

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


Today (1/22/2013) is the 50th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision that made abortion legal. 

Joe Biden picked today to issue a new presidential memorandum to protect access to abortion pills.

Here is the actual release from the White House:




FACT SHEET: President   Biden to Sign Presidential Memorandum on Ensuring Safe Access to Medication   Abortion

    1. HOME
    2. B
    3. RIEFING ROOM
    4. STATEMENTS AND RELEASES





Vice President Harris Will Announce Presidential Memorandum in Remarks in Florida to Mark 50 th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

On what would have been the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade , President Biden will issue a Presidential Memorandum on Further Efforts to Protect Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services. Vice President Harris will announce the Presidential Memorandum in Florida later today, where she will speak about the next steps in the fight for reproductive rights and reinforce the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to protecting access to abortion, including medication abortion.

Since the day of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , President Biden has emphasized the need to protect access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over 20 years and accounts for the majority of all abortions in the United States.

Earlier this month, the FDA took evidence-based action to support safe access to mifepristone by allowing the continued use of telehealth to prescribe the medication and creating a new option for certified pharmacies to dispense it to patients.

Some state officials have taken steps to try to prevent women from legally accessing medication abortion and to discourage pharmacies from becoming certified by the FDA.
Today, President Biden will sign a Presidential Memorandum to further protect access to medication abortion.

In the face of barriers to medication abortion and concerns about the safety of patients, healthcare providers, and pharmacists, today’s Presidential Memorandum announces actions to:

    • Protect Legal Access to Medication Abortion. The Presidential Memorandum directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), to consider new guidance to support patients, providers, and pharmacies who wish to legally access, prescribe, or provide mifepristone—no matter where they live.
    • Safeguard Patient Safety and Security. To ensure that patients understand their right to access reproductive healthcare despite roadblocks, the Presidential Memorandum directs the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of DHS, to consider new actions to ensure that patients can access legal reproductive care, including medication abortion from a pharmacy, free from threats or violence. The President has long made clear that people should have access to reproductive care free from harassment, threats, or violence. Pharmacies should be treated no differently.

The Attorney General and the Secretaries of HHS and DHS will also provide recommendations to the White House Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access, which was established by President Biden in Executive Order 14076, on additional ways to address barriers faced by patients, providers, and pharmacies in safely and legally accessing or providing medication abortion, consistent with evidence-based requirements set by the FDA.

###






Here is the Fox spin on this important memorandum:

Biden issues memorandum to protect access to abortion pills


Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court in a June 2022 landmark decision



President Biden issued a presidential memorandum Sunday on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in an effort to protect access to abortion pills across the country. 

Vice President Kamala Harris made the announcement during her remarks in Florida as she spoke on the administration's efforts to expand abortion rights. 

"Members of our Cabinet and our administration are now directed as of the president's order to identify barriers to access to prescription medication and to recommend actions to make sure that doctors can legally prescribe, that pharmacies can dispense and that women can secure safe and effective medication," Harris said during her remarks in Tallahassee, Florida.

"The Presidential Memorandum on Further Efforts to Protect Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) "to consider new guidance" for entities and individuals – including patients, medical providers, and pharmacies – that wish to "legally access, prescribe, or provide mifepristone" across the U.S., according to a statement released by the White House. 

The memorandum also directs the secretary of HHS along with the attorney general and the secretary of DHS to look into other means through which patients can access "legal reproductive care," including abortion medication from pharmacies, "free from threats or violence."

The attorney general and the HHS and DHS secretaries will also work with the White House Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access in addressing "barriers" patients, pharmacies and medical providers currently face when attempting to acquire abortion medication. 

MARCH FOR LIFE ATTENDEES CALL FOR BANS AND SUPPORT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN

"At the same time that we work to protect this aspect of reproductive care, many states have gone even further and now have total bans in effect," Harris said during her remarks before continuing on to list several states that have already issued near-total abortion bans.

Harris also called upon Congress to pass a reproductive rights bill, saying Biden will sign it if so. 

"So to all the friends and leaders, I say, let us not be tired or discouraged because we're on the right side of history," Harris said. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-issues-memorandum-protect-access-abortion-pills

Please notice that Fox embedded a link to the "MARCH FOR LIFE".  They said, "ATTENDEES CALL FOR BANS AND SUPPORT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN".  I'm sure they want more "bans" on abortion butt, I question their "support for pregnant women".

Calling on Congress to pass a "reproduction rights bill" will probably ensure that the fucking House of Reprehensibles will not even vote on it.

Biden will probably need to use an Executive Order like the one below:




Gender Policy Council








The Gender Policy Council (GPC) was established by President Biden to advance gender equity and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and implementation. The GPC covers a range of issues—including economic security, health, gender-based violence and education—with a focus on gender equity and equality, and particular attention to the barriers faced by women and girls. It also plays an essential role in the President’s efforts to advance equity in government policy for those who face discrimination and bias based on multiple factors—including members of the Black, Latina, Native American, AAPI, and LGBTQI+ communities, as well as persons with disabilities.

The GPC is led by Jennifer Klein, who serves as an Assistant to the President and the Director of the Gender Policy Council. The GPC is staffed by domestic and global gender policy experts, including a Senior Advisor on Gender-Based Violence.

The GPC works in coordination with the other White House policy councils and across all federal agencies to drive a strategic, whole-of-government approach to advance gender equality and gender equity,  as part of the implementation of the first-ever National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality in the U.S.

You can read the March 8, 2021 executive order establishing the Gender Policy Council here .



Joe Biden has always supported Women Rights.  As you can see he also supports civil rights of the LGBTQI community and, of course, the rights of the AAPI community.

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

UPDATE:   Attorneys General of 22 Red States have said their states wouldn't "comply" with the Biden Presidential Memorandum.  And, of course, Governor DeSantis said Florida state will ignore the memorandum. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1  author  al Jizzerror    one week ago

The women of the United States need to organize a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.

The majority of the voters in this country are women.

They need to join together to elect a Congress that will pass a law to protect a woman's right to choose.

 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one week ago

theocrats taking away the right of individual freedom from 51% of americans is the fastest way I can think of for them to personally meet geezus. to listen to those thumper assholes one would think that all abortions take place when a woman goes into labor. it's just another example of religious over reach by a bunch of self righteous busybodies that seem to have a problem with the apparently incomplete and imperfect job their version of a omnipotent deity has done. it's time to treat the fringe activist elements of religion as the businesses that they are and tax them.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    one week ago
They need to join together to elect a Congress that will pass a law to protect a woman's right to choose.

It seems to escape you how many women are against your position. In my mind's eye, I imagine you going door to door, trying to drum up support from women for such a thing as you suggest and, when you meet a woman who's completely against your position, you stand there gaping at something you find incomprehensible. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    one week ago

It depends on where you live. In my area, you would be right. But in big blue cities I bet you would be wrong

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    one week ago
It depends on where you live. In my area, you would be right. But in big blue cities I bet you would be wrong

No, actually. My point is that women are not a homogenous entity that will all have the same view concerning the issue. But even in blue cities, there are women who would not support al Jizzerror's view. That's the point. He speaks as if he assumes they would all be of one mind because of what he believes about the issue precludes any other possibility. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.2    one week ago

I'm talking about a majority not assuming that all women in blue cities think the same. I would think even you would understand that

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.3    one week ago
I'm talking about a majority not assuming that all women in blue cities think the same. I would think even you would understand that

I do understand it. What I'm responding to is your lack of understanding of the comment you originally replied to. My statement was correct, yet you tried to twist it into something where you could say it was wrong. It wasn't. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    6 days ago
It seems to escape you how many women are against your position.

It seems to escape you that the majority of women are pro-choice (I never said ALL women are pro-choice).

Those women plus the many pro-choice men vastly out number the religious bigots who are anti-abortion.

About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the United States, and it is one that sharply divides Americans along partisan, ideological and religious lines.

Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. These views are relatively unchanged in the past few years.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.6  Drakkonis  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.5    6 days ago
It seems to escape you that the majority of women are pro-choice (I never said ALL women are pro-choice).

Um, yeah. 

The women of the United States need to organize a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.

The majority of the voters in this country are women.

They need to join together to elect a Congress that will pass a law to protect a woman's right to choose.

The context indicates that you are referring to all women. Hence, my statement. Don't blame me for your sloppy writing. 

 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.2.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.6    6 days ago
The context indicates that you are referring to all women. Hence, my statement.

68% of ALL women voters in US support safe and legal abortions. So a super-majority of American women in the US support safe and legal abortions. Of course in some deluded half-wit poorly educated right wing religious conservatives 'minds eye' they reject reality and wrongly believe that the majority of women in America actually support their narrow fucked up warped religious views on abortion where a God that apparently miscarries more than half of all fertilized eggs gives a fuck about whether a woman terminates the same fertilized egg by choice.

Female voters that support Roe vs. Wade U.S. by party 2018 | Statista

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.7    6 days ago

Do you feel better now? 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.6    6 days ago
The context indicates that you are referring to all women.

That's fucking hilarious.

I never used the word "all".  I said women "need to organize".

Then I posted this:

"The majority of the voters in this country are women."  Comment  ( #1 )

(Hint) The majority women of women can organize and become the most influential group in the Democratic Party (the party that needs to codify Roe).

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.8    6 days ago
Do you feel better now? 

I don't know about   Dismayed Patriot , butt I feel great!

Was it good for you?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.11  Drakkonis  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.9    6 days ago
I never used the word "all"

Didn't say you did. However,

The women of the United States need to organize a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.

The majority of the voters in this country are women.

They need to join together to elect a Congress that will pass a law to protect a woman's right to choose.

is pretty hard to read as not including every single woman in the United States. It is pretty clear you are speaking of women collectively. You can pretend it says something else, but hey, why not? That's what you guys do, right? 

Anyway, I'm not going to bother wasting my time with this further. You stepped on it and are now trying to backtrack. I don't have time for that. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.11    6 days ago
You stepped on it and are now trying to backtrack.

That's fucking bullshit.

is pretty hard to read as not including every single woman in the United States.

Why do you find my comment "hard to read" without thinking it applies to "every single woman in the United States?"

This is the third time I've clarified a simple post.

Fuck off.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.13  Drakkonis  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.12    6 days ago
Why do you find my comment "hard to read" without thinking it applies to "every single woman in the United States?"

Grammar, dude. Your statement includes all female members of the United States. That isn't an opinion. That's literally what your statement says. Learn grammar or deal with what you say. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.13    6 days ago
Grammar, dude

Wow!  Your Gramma must be very progressive, since she's a "dude". 

I'm a published author, you?

My editor said, "That guy is nuts."

FUCK OFF (again).

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.15  Drakkonis  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.14    6 days ago

About what I expected of you. Have a nice night. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2.15    6 days ago
About what I expected of you.

About what I expected of you too.

So, for the third time...   FUCK OFF! Troll.

Have a nice nightmare.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.7    6 days ago

Your quoted sentence appears to be from someone who just wants to argue

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.14    6 days ago

He just wants to argue. He has nothing of substance to say so he will nit pick your comments

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
1.2.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.18    6 days ago
he will nit pick your comments

Oh no, you implied that he will nit pick ALL of my comments.

It's okay.

He kinda reminds me of Alice Cooper....

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.19    6 days ago

Ok...most of your comments

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
2  author  al Jizzerror    one week ago

xxI was kinda hoping to hear from some of the NT women.

I assumed that some of them would support a woman's right to use abortion pills.

Maybe the NT women just aren't sufficiently motivated.

For additional motivation visit this site:

https://newstalkers.com/aljizzerror/sexgroup_jizzparticipation\cuminsidemetonight.nowineedtthepill

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1  Gsquared  replied to  al Jizzerror @2    one week ago

This shouldn't just be a women's issue.  The Right to Privacy is under attack by the reactionaries.  We should all be very concerned.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
2.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    one week ago
The Right to Privacy is under attack by the reactionaries.

Justice Samuel Alito doesn't believe in anyone's "Right to Privacy".

That's why he leaked the draft of his own decision to Politico.

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.1    one week ago

He believes he has a right to privacy

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @2.1    one week ago

There is no right to privacy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.3    one week ago

So you have no right to privacy arkie?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.4    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
2.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.2    6 days ago
He believes he has a right to privacy

Butt,Associate Justice Samuel Aleako doesn't believe anyone else has any rights (except 2nd Amendment rights).

MOOT POINTS, GUN LAWS AND THE SUPREME COURT

The Journal’s editorial board would like to blame us for the failure of a major 2nd Amendment challenge at the Supreme Court.

The Journal’s editorial board joined Justice Samuel Alito to blame us for the failure of a major Second Amendment challenge at the Supreme Court (“ The Chief Justice Ducks on Gun Rights ,” April 28). The Justice alleges that we somehow “manipulated” the court. That’s rich, in light of the right-wing dark-money machine surrounding the court.

And check out this new article:

Alito and Thomas encourage opponents of gun control laws to keep pressure on the courts

By Ariane de Vogue , CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Published 3:22 PM EST, Wed January 11, 2023
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.6    6 days ago

Should he be allowed to do that? It clearly shows he is not non-partisan and definitely has an opinion before a case is brought to court

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.3    5 days ago
There is no right to privacy. 

Maybe not in whatever fascist shithole country you live in, but in America we have fundamental privacy rights.   Otherwise, for example, the police would feel free to enter anyone's home without a warrant, or tap anyone's phone.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
2.1.9  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.8    5 days ago
Otherwise, for example, the police would feel free to enter anyone's home without a warrant, or tap anyone's phone.

You have the right to be secure in your property, person and papers but there is no specific right to privacy. If something can be openly seen it can be used against you. That is why your car can be searched if a drug dog indicates it detects drugs. It is why that if I am searching your home with a warrant for drugs and find an illegal weapon in a drawer it also can get you busted 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.10  Gsquared  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.9    2 days ago

You will find US Supreme Court cases that refer to the right of privacy.  Even James Madison in the Federalist papers discusses a right of privacy:  

Ever since the founding of the United States, it seems, most Americans have believed in a right to privacy—the right to protection against unwarranted or unlawful government intrusion into certain legally protected areas of private life. The framers of the U.S. Constitution often referred to constitutionally protected personal and private rights. Within several papers of The Federalist, the greatest commentary ever written on the meaning and intent of the Constitution, James Madison prominently discusses the public and private rights that a good government should protect. For example, in the tenth paper of The Federalist, Madison writes:
"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government . . . enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."
The very idea of a constitution implies zones of private life that are beyond the reach and regulation of a government limited by law. Indeed, an individual’s right to privacy in certain domains of personal life, off-limits to invasive government regulation, is a primary distinction between totalitarian or despotic governments and constitutionally limited and free governments.

www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/the-pursuit-of-justice/pursuit-justice-chapter-16-finding-right-privacy/

If something can be openly seen it can be used against you.

If something can be openly seen that is the exact opposite of "private".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @2    one week ago

thumpers are going after women because they are programed by xtian dogma to believe that women are weak and subservient to all men. they won't stop until they either have a theocracy or get planted in the church parking lot.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    one week ago

If progressives love women and girls so much, why do they support the rights and actions of trans "women" and girls, over those of real, biological females?

 The pro-abortion Dems had every chance to pass a reproductive bill before the midterms, now they will have to deal with their lack of action.

I have no problem with abortion if done as early as possible, and the abortion pill is a better and more private way to accomplish it.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one week ago
If progressives love women and girls so much, why do they support the rights and actions of trans "women" and girls, over those of real, biological females?

It's fucking obvious that you have no idea what the concept of "equality" means. 

This is from Biden's Executive Order that established the Gender Policy Council:

The Gender Policy Council (GPC) was established by President Biden to advance gender equity and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and implementation. The GPC covers a range of issues—including economic security, health, gender-based violence and education—with a focus on gender equity and equality, and particular attention to the barriers faced by women and girls.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one week ago
The pro-abortion Dems had every chance to pass a reproductive bill before the midterms, now they will have to deal with their lack of action.

Because if they did it before midterms, it would eliminate any chance they have of being able to play the victim and blame others for their incompetence.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2    one week ago

Ding ding ding ding ding...    we have a winner here folks...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2    one week ago
Because if they did it before midterms, it would eliminate any chance they have of being able to play the victim and blame others for their incompetence.  

The Democrats had no chance of getting anything about abortion (or immigration or voting rights, etc.) through the Senate.

I see the Republicans on NewsTalkers have conveniently forgotten about the filibuster.  The Dems never had the 60 votes required to get past the Republican's fucking stonewall in the Senate.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.2.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    one week ago
we have a winner here folks...

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.2    one week ago

And  you completely ignore the fact that the Democrats when they held the majority (just like the Republicans do now) could have passed a bill in the House and used any and all Republicans who voted against it as campaign fodder for the election cycle.  You want to ignore that neither side really wants to solve this issue in a bi-partisan way much like immigration and so many other issues.  Both sides would rather keep it as a club to beat the other side with.

If Republicans are smart (not taking bets on this) they would pass many bills in the House that the general public wants and send them to the Senate while publicizing them all to hell so that every voting person knows what the Senate is voting on and how the Senate vote may impact the general public.  Hold that over the heads of the Democrats and basically dare them to fail to pass or even vote.

And yes, that statement in 3.2 is 100% true.  It could be used by both parties.

But you keep beating that partisan drum...   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.4    one week ago

You completely ignore reality while always supporting the 'right'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    one week ago

NO, you do not.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.4    one week ago
And  you completely ignore the fact that the Democrats when they held the majority

And you completely ignore reality.

The Democrats did pass a bill to modify Roe v Wade, I guess many Americans, like you, are ignorant about this:

House Democrats pass abortion bill codifying Roe v Wade without Republican support

None of the President Biden's executive actions can restore abortion rights. But Congress can pass laws to enshrine Roe v. Wade nationwide.

Candy Woodall
USA TODAY - July 15, 2022

WASHINGTON–Facing mounting pressure to respond to a conservative Supreme Court ruling, House Democrats passed two bills Friday that would protect abortion rights and the women who travel across state lines for the procedure. 

But there are major questions about whether either bill can get past a 50-50 Senate and reach President Joe Biden's desk.

    • What are the bills? The Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 would enshrine Roe v. Wade into federal law. The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act would protect a patient's right to travel for legal abortions.
    • How they voted: The bills passed the Democratic-led House as expected. The Women's Health Protection Act passed 219-210, almost entirely along party lines with every Democrat but one in favor and every Republican opposed. The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act passed 223-205 with every Democrat voting for it and every Republican but a handful opposing it.
    • What's next? The legislation now moves to the Senate, where the Women's Health Protection Act failed to advance in May. It garnered only 49 votes instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against the bill. Since Roe was overturned, he has expressed a willingness to work on a bipartisan bill that would protect abortion rights. 
        • Why did they hold these votes? Even though the bills may be doomed to fail in the Senate, they provide Democrats the opportunity to get Republicans on the record before the midterms. Citing polls showing most Americans supporting access to abortion,Democrats have said the Roe decision could help them hold onto the majority in the fall, though some analysts say the economy is more likely to be the top issue among voters. 
        • Why it matters: None of the president's executive actions can restore abortion rights. But Congress can pass laws to restore Roe v. Wade nationwide.
 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.2.8  Snuffy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.2.7    one week ago

So Democrats couldn't even get all of their own party to vote in favor of it.  However you are correct,  I did not remember that the House had passed that bill and sent it to the Senate.  But they sure could have publicized it more.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
3.2.9  MonsterMash  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    one week ago
You completely ignore reality while always supporting the 'right'

You completely ignore reality while always supporting the left.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    one week ago

I am not a woman but hell, I think I would rather just take a pill a day or so after...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @4    one week ago

LOL , even not being a woman there is an option open to men as well , simply disconnect the "plumbing " .....

 when i had it done it was cheaper , less invasive , and had less recovery time than if a woman had the procedure done to them .

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1    one week ago
 when i had it done it was cheaper

Ouch!

You're talking about birth control which is wonderful

Butt, when a woman is pregnant, it's too fucking late for any kind of birth control.

Women need solutions that will help them after the sperm reaches their eggs.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.1    one week ago

i look at it as i took the step for them so they dont have to worry about what you mentioned to begin with . its all in choices to me .

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.2    one week ago

I applaud you for your choices. Vasectomies are much easier for men than tubals are for women. And vasectomies can be reversed

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.3    one week ago

only way mine can be reversed is with  some donor duct , when talking the different ways to have it done i opted to have a segment completely removed , the ends cauterized and then folded over and tied/ clipped .

 i was pretty sure i didnt want anymore kids , the significant other at the time ..... lets just say there were no arguments after her last birthing ....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.4    one week ago

My spouse got snipped after his first daughter was born. He knew he didn't want any more children with the Beast from Hell. He got it reversed about 3 years after we got married.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1.4    one week ago

I had a procedure done and can't have kids.

The Doc told me one time the only way I could have kids is if it was taken from my testicles by a needle...

Kinda stops those thoughts....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @4.1.6    one week ago

LMFAO!!!!!!

 trout will like this one ...or anyone that was in the military.

 just had a flashback to basic training and the rumor of the "square needle in the left nut " that use to circulate just before the mass immunizations ........

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
4.1.8  cobaltblue  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.3    6 days ago

I applaud you for your choices. Vasectomies are much easier for men than tubals are for women. And vasectomies can be reversed

33a6e1f3dc4160890862a057b1103856.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
4.1.9  cobaltblue  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.3    4 days ago
Vasectomies are much easier

a71bd1dda2d2aa61d30ffa27be4948fa.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
4.1.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @4.1.9    4 days ago

Condoms are less painful and they prevent most STDs.

And, I've never gotten pregnant.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
5  cobaltblue    one week ago

I realize I'm going a bit off track regarding the abortion pill topic, but I've got a busy day and I'm getting to the nitty. If there is anyone here that thought the government was overstepping their bounds by mandating vaccines, imagine being a woman being forced by the government to have a baby that's unprepared for or unwanted. If the government is forcing childbirth, it should be fair for both parties. DNA testing immediately. The father shall be legally bound to provide 50% of the care (including childcare costs), welfare (health insurance), education and well-being of the child. If the father fails to provide for any of those legally binding obligations, the IRS gets involved. If payments are not made timely, paychecks should be garnished, liens placed on possessions and property, and any other legal means to prepare the originally unwanted child to live a full and happy life. Men should wear a condom at all times. Never leave birth control measures up to the woman only. Or the government will be a'knockin'. That's my proposal. 

Almost 2k children a year die at the hands of their caretakers. 

According to data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 51 States reported a total of 1,809 fatalities.

Based on these data, a nationally estimated 1,840 children died from abuse or neglect in FFY 2019, a slight increase from the FFY 2018 number of 1,780. However, it is a 10.8-percent increase over the FFY 2015 number of 1,660.

The FFY 2019 data translate to a rate of 2.5 children per 100,000 children in the general population and an average of more than 5 children dying every day from abuse or neglect. NCANDS defines “child fatality” as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect or where abuse or neglect was a contributing factor.

* * * *

HOW DO THESE DEATHS OCCUR?

Fatal child abuse may involve repeated abuse over a period of time, or it may involve a single, impulsive incident (e.g., drowning, suffocating, shaking a baby). In cases of fatal neglect, the child’s death does not result from anything the caregiver does; rather, it results from a caregiver’s failure to act. The neglect may be chronic (e.g., extended malnourishment) or acute (e.g., an infant who drowns after being left unsupervised in the bathtub). 

Read this link

And those who say they're pro-life are lying. They're pro-birth. That's it. Once that precious baby leaves the birth canal, all bets are completely off. No assistance. If you ask for government assistance, you're a welfare queen. I highly doubt anyone here that is horrified at the thought of abortion has ever taken packages of diapers or formula or wipes to any of their neighborhood single mothers or donated them to shelters. They don't care about the "life" of the child. Just the birth. 

If you don't like the abortion pill, don't use it. Five children die a day from abuse.   And you don't want a pill. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  cobaltblue @5    one week ago

Thank you

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
5.1.1  cobaltblue  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1    6 days ago

Thank you

Seems so simple, doesn't it? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2  Ender  replied to  cobaltblue @5    6 days ago

Mic Drop....

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @5    6 days ago
And those who say they're pro-life are lying. They're pro-birth. That's it.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  cobaltblue @5    6 days ago
If you don't like the abortion pill, don't use it. Five children die a day from abuse.   And you don't want a pill. 

Shhhhhh! Don't go rocking the right wing religious conservative 'boat' narrative, they are desperate to divert focus onto the pro-choice crowd. No need to worry so much about the religious conservative parents 'beating' their religious indoctrination into children that are already born, and if those kids die after such a beating apparently it was just 'God's Will'. /s

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
5.4.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.4    6 days ago
No need to worry so much about the religious conservative parents 'beating' their religious indoctrination into children that are already born, and if those kids die after such a beating apparently it was just 'God's Will'. /s

Fuck yeah, gotta beat some sense into little shits.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" - The unHoly Bible (written by ancient Hebrew goat herders)

512

*Please notice that the "makeameme.org" logo is not in the lower right corner of this meme.

When I make "controversial" content on their site it's marked "restricted".  They know I can still use it so they remove their logo. I like that (because they did NOT delete my "controversial" content).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.4.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.4    6 days ago
if those kids die after such a beating apparently it was just 'God's Will'. /s

It also comes with a 15 to life prison sentence

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
6  cobaltblue    6 days ago

c88babee7dbac12dbdd207ff70a488ff.jpg

Life begins at ejaculation. Let them legislate that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
6.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @6    6 days ago
Life begins at ejaculation.

OMG!

I'm a fucking mass murder.

When I gave you that pearl neckless, just think of all of those "beautiful pre-born babies'" that died (dried?).

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  cobaltblue @6    6 days ago

Let's start legislating ejaculations that are not swimming up the canal to make babies. So all you master baiters and premature ejaculators....take notice

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
6.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    6 days ago
legislating ejaculations

I always employ "fake" ejaculations when I have sex to protect all of those tiny "potential babies".

Then I go to the sperm bank and make deposits.

You may have noticed a new wing has been added to the sperm bank called "Jizzerror's". 

It's nice that there's a place where everyone knows my name.

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.1    6 days ago

I see you have your very own staff, too. You must make lots of deposits

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
6.2.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.2    6 days ago
I see you have your very own staff

I'm a old Navy guy.

I like the  "all hands on dick" technique.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.1    4 days ago

That picture reminded me of an old joke...

An old man had been depressed for several years after his wife had passed so some of his old guy buddies decides to try and cheer him up by hiring a candy striper prostitute. The woman dressed in a very revealing nurses outfit shows up and knocks on the old mans door. When he opens the door the candy striper says in a sing song voice "Your friends wanted to cheer you up so they sent me to give you some super sex!" to which the old man replied "Okay, I'll take the soup!"...

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
6.2.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    yesterday

Let's start legislating ejaculations that are not swimming up the canal to make babies. So all you master baiters and premature ejaculators....take notice

c8620f37f1b5ae53386647c263e876c1.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Participates
7  cobaltblue    2 days ago

99c5194e4d349c1a55974bf5a0c9d05b.jpg

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2


16 visitors