This is the first smart move I've seen from the Biden campaign. It'll certainly signal clearly which party might give a damn about women's rights. On the downside, of course, the clinic Harris visits will undoubtedly be firebombed soon.
Congrats to terrorists, for winning that multi-trillion dollar war on terror...
I'm pretty sure she's not the first politician to visit an abortion clinic.
Hell, I'm fairly certain she's not even the first Vice President to do so.
The article describes it as
a visit that is believed to be the first stop by a president or vice president to an abortion clinic.
Can you name a prior instance? I'd really be surprised, to be honest. And hey, I am no Harris fan, but this is still a striking action.
It's a sarcastic comment that politicians likely secretly visited an abortion clinic to get their mistress an abortion while campaigning against abortion.
Oh, hah, woosh right over my head, thank you for explaining.
Why would they go with her? Send her with a driver and tell her to let him know when she is done healing from getting scrapped.
Not like they actually care about the woman and would accompany her.
Why was Dan Quayle the first name that sprung to mind?
She's 59. I thought she was past the age of pregnancy.
She must be getting one of those "post-birth" abortions Republicans are always screeching about.
Why is this news?
First time a President or Vice President has openly visited an abortion clinic. It makes a very clear statement about her (and the Democrats) political position, and is an important part of politicking.
Gotcha, thanks for the answer. Isn't it already assumed anybody to the left of R is pro-choice though? Why show this to a base that already understood their stance?
It is not. There is a history of the Democrats including people who are anti-abortion within their tent.
I kinda think if they actually cared they would have codified Roe during his free reign no? This feels more like a bargaining chip than anything, same as the random pot seminar.
Broken Senate rules basically require 60% to bring something that isn't budget-related to a vote.
Why vote for either party that put forth the broken Senate rules?
Because not voting is worse
Voting 3rd party is a vote
Voting 3rd party is better than not voting for sure
Not practically, especially when plurality takes all and there's no ranked choice voting system. Say you had a candidate who was 95% perfect for you, another who was at 80%, and another who agreed with 10% of your beliefs. Now let's say that only the latter two had a realistic shot. When you throw your vote away on someone who never had a chance, rather than the guy who came close and could've won, you may as well have voted for the guy you agreed with least.
Take a look at Hawaii's special election in 2010. This district should have been a shoo-in for a Democrat running against a Republican. But when two Democrats run against a Republican? Their vote splits and the guy with 40% of the vote wins - even though one of the other two better lined up with 60% of the voters
Thanks for playing, though.
You may vote for the genocidal old man, but I can't/won't in good conscience. And the "he's worse" argument (when I'm not voting for either primary party) is a silly hill to stand on.
Either you let them walk all over you, or you vote for a candidate that will implement ranked-choice voting.
President Trump thanks you. At least he should put Netanyahu in his place just like he did Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, and Viktor Orbán
Because unless most of the populous is going for the same alternative you are, voting for some other party mostly benefits the major party farthest from your views. It's a consequence of FPTP, which always collapses into a two party system.
This is the kiss of death. Putting Kamala Harris in charge of an issue means the administration doesn't think there's any solution (remember how she was supposed to fix the border?).
White House officials say they have largely reached the limits of their power to protect abortion rights...
Yeah, sounds about right.
This is the kiss of death. Putting Kamala Harris in charge of an issue means the administration doesn’t think there’s any solution (remember how she was supposed to fix the border?).
And we saw what happened there. Democrats adopted Republican policy wholesale.
then pretended it was some ridiculous nth-dimensional chess move when the republicans told them to fuck off because they'd rather their guy get credit for it.
This is how when Biden went on the picket fence, it does absolutely nothing to improve the situation but its a cool 'historic first' to brag about.
Like his SCOTUS pick. He announced he was choosing a black woman well before he had an actual pick because having the "historic first" to brag about was of value to him and he knew there were black female judges out there who were at least as qualified as any Trump pick.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ms. Harris plans on Thursday to tour the center with an abortion provider and highlight what the administration has done to try to preserve access to the procedure as conservative states enact growing restrictions.
The Society of Family Planning, a health research organization, found that the average number of abortions in the state increased by about 36 percent in the year after the Supreme Court decision.
Instead, a notable number focused on the complexities, embracing slogans like “safe, legal and rare” and joining Republicans to oppose taxpayer funding of the procedure through the Hyde Amendment.
But the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade scrambled those old politics, creating an energized coalition of voters who helped Democrats win a series of federal and state races thanks to their support of abortion rights.
Those assurances represent a notable escalation on the issue from Mr. Biden, an observant Catholic who spent decades caught between with his religious opposition to the procedure and the policy of his party.
Legislation codifying federal abortion rights would have little chance of passage, given the narrow Democratic majority in the Senate and disagreements within the president’s own party over the scope of such a bill.
The original article contains 705 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News