I was thinking about something the other day. Is there a Title IX case for abortion rights? I mean, there’s a risk of maternal mortality with any pregnancy, and it’s more than double for African American women.
I’m thinking of something along the lines of, any state that wants to restrict abortion or make it illegal, must also restrict an equivalently risk-reducing, male-only medical procedure. Maybe prostate surgery? Probably not a good choice, since it carries a higher risk for African American men. But something that balances the scales in the name of equal protection.
Good deal. I don’t that Biden, at least back in 2006, cared nearly as much about protecting those rights, however.
I don’t think so… but it seems like something that could somehow backfire, though I’m not sure how. I’d have to think about it…
The fact that Roe, et all were decided on privacy rights needs to be shouted to the rooftops, because that illustrates how it’s not just about women and some special rights, but about all of our rights to make medical decisions for ourselves. At this point we already have a private, for profit corporations intervening in our relationships with our doctors.
That’s what the parent poster is trying to say … this is old and his views HAVE changed. At what point do we say people can evolve their thinking? I know I didn’t pop out of mom with all my views firmly in place…
He still has been talking down to women, and I mean, this week - while he talks a good game, especially on the Hyde amendment, which he supported until, again, literally THIS WEEK, he still doesn’t seem to get that women are people, not props. As @d_r noted, Biden is a political animal, meaning he’ll sway with where the wind blows. While that also means he can be pushed in the more progressive direction, I’m not going to bet my fundamental rights on such vagaries. Neither should ANY of us, quite frankly. As I pointed out, Roe is based on the right to privacy, so this is something that should be concern to all of us who value our privacy and fundamental rights to make medical decisions for ourselves. Anything less is rolling over on basic human rights.
This is a great point, and something I think we don’t focus on enough. I was deeply embedded in techbro culture (I mean, my first startup job was right out of college co-op!) and had some retrospectively terrible opinions and ideas on gender equality in technology in my late teens/early 20s. Decades later I deeply regret that time and my thinking, but I’m lucky that the social media explosion hadn’t happened yet (hell, the internet hadn’t really happened yet), and so those times get to fall down the memory hole.
For me personally. Current actions speak louder than decade-ago statements, and I believe that’s how it should be. IMHO individuals in these situations should own up to their past statements, apologize for them, and take action to show that this is no longer what they believe.
Because minds, ideas, and understanding does change and can evolve. I’m one very small anecdotal proof of that fact.
I honestly don’t think Biden had a come to Jesus moment, though, on women and women’s rights.
I agree. Actually Elizabeth Warren is a great example of doing just that (she used to be a republican, in fact - her work changed her views). I don’t think Biden is, though. I don’t buy his turn on this issue, which he was retrograde on for a very long time.
Right. And the funny thing is the bulk of people wanting to curtail abortion also want to curtail birth control, sexual education and consent culture. It’s somehow never about reducing the need, just the access.
There will always be some need. Sometimes even the most wanted pregnancy ends in tragedy.
But there’s a reason I call them anti-choice, not forced birth. They don’t just want to make those with a uterus give birth (including forcing trans people to stop taking hormones because they might harm the fetus) they want to eliminate any choice we have.
I don’t think I ever said that. You make a lot of points farther down the thread about what Biden’s views are now that are 100% relevant, and good reasons to put him pretty low on the candidate approval ladder. I just don’t use 13-year old comments in my personal rankings.
Dang it, Uncle Joe, either primary as a Republican, or STFU and go away. Yes, I know he said these things in 2006. I don’t see much evidence that he’s changed very much, on this or any of the other stupid things he does or says, since.
Biden’s personal views on women – the picture in his head – seems to me to be very much a product of growing up in the 40s and 50s in a rural blue-collar community. For someone like me, only a generation behind him, the views are wrong but recognizable, so not alien. I suspect that for someone two or three generations behind him, say someone born after 1975-80, the views might seem fringey and gross: how could anyone support such a self-evident creep?
I had the same reaction when Reagan ran: I didn’t understand how older people could actually like him, to me he hardly seemed human.
I think Biden’s voting record on women’s issues his last few years in the Senate, and his track record as veep, compensate enough for this that someone who finds him creepy should be nervously comfortable voting for him in the General. However, I also think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to cringe at the idea of his being POTUS based on the stuff that comes out of his mouth, and of course to support someone else in the primary.
In the 1976 election I was horrified as Carter pulled ahead of candidates I actually liked to win the primary. His southern evangelical persona genuinely repelled the young and parochial me, especially in contrast to Ford’s easygoing midwestern doofiness. I voted for him anyway (mainly because of Watergate but also because Ford’s ignorance of international affairs seemed dangerous) and have never regretted it.
Nope. But it damn well was a problem, nonetheless, and these things add up, when someone is choosing whom to vote for.
Personally, I believe Biden isn’t quite as smart as Hillary but shares many, if not most of the same weaknesses. Add to that his own personal crop, such as his very recent stance on abortion and inappropriate touchy-feely moments, and I think he’s already doomed himself as the Democratic candidate.
That said, I’m reasonably sure he’ll get the nod; the party apparatus has made it pretty clear whom the “Golden Child” is supposed to be, once again =p.
I don’t like Biden and will oppose him (inasmuch as it is possible to do so from outside a country not my own). But if he does get the nod I sure as hell will be in favour of him winning vs. 45. There are about 250 million US citizens I’d prefer to see as president ahead of Trump, and Biden is on that list (I also include most people under 20, including babies).
Until then definitely fight it out over what would be the best candidate. You all need a placeholder while the old guard dies off and people like AOC can run for the office.
This is so important to understand and gets way too little room in the conversation. The debate is not about the life of a child, it is about who controls the woman. And by all means, it certainly cannot be left to the woman! Just consider the all-male panels that advise and devise these laws. What does Biden think about this issue, really? I do not think we know. And I agree with @anon61221983, there is not enough there there to hang faith on.
If you’re a Democratic political animal with no actual firmly-held stands on anything (which I think is true for Biden), then crafting a politically optimal position on abortion is not as easy as one might think. 75% of Democrats support choice in most or all cases, so that’s a no-brainer. The polls on federal financing of abortion however are all over the place. That’s partly because of the poll wording: if you ask whether the federal government should fund abortion, the answer is quite a bit different (mainly “no”) than if you ask whether poor women should have less access to abortion that wealthy women (mainly “no”).
That’s a problem with poll-driven politics. If you’re principle-driven on the issue (Sanders and Gillibrand for example) you don’t need to do calculations to decide what to support. On the other hand, the more you pin yourself down on specific policies, the more voters that will choose not to support you because they disagree on that one thing. This is something Biden has understood for his entire political career, and why he is a consummate politician. It won’t make for an inspiring presidency.
That’s no excuse, at all. Because plenty of men raised in the 40s and 50s either didn’t have retrograde views to begin with, or evolved as they became more aware and educated to how their actions hurt women. Plus, plenty of men who are Gen Xers or millennials behave the exact same way towards women. It’s not a generational thing, so deeply ingrained that they can’t change.
Enough younger people liked him enough to get him elected…
That’s the problem, though, that he cares more about winning than about passing legislation that benefits his constituents. Might as well vote for Frank Underwood…
That I agree with 100%. It’s time politicians stop being power hungry assholes and start doing their god damn jobs.
That’s true enough, though I think it is both the time and the place. By contrast, in the same time period Trump grew up in one of the most progressive, open-minded cultures in the country. At least there’s some explanation for Biden’s worldview.
As for change, one would ideally like for him to be better than he is, but given that he’s exactly how he is, that raises the question of whether that is bad enough to rule him out of the presidency. 3 years ago I would have said “yes”.
Again, true enough; similarly, many young people today like Biden and even like Trump. I’m just saying that I couldn’t see him as anything but a nasty old relic, and I’d had contact with lots of older politicians at that point in my life. I expect something similar is going on with Biden.
It’s time politicians stop being power hungry assholes and start doing their god damn jobs.
From your lips to God’s ear. I’ve done campaign work for a ton of candidates who shared your philosophy of office. Most of them lost, mainly ignominiously.
That’s the problem, though, that he cares more about winning than about passing legislation that benefits his constituents. Might as well vote for Frank Underwood…
The good news is that he does seem to get there in the end on most issues, though maybe well after the rest of use were already there. For example, I saw this last month by a guy who seems to live a little south of you:
