cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24607393
credit for this post to :
@denimaww@lemmy.world
The US is actually going to implement a nationwide abortion ban and the measures for how it’s going to be handled are already in the works. This bill, which I link to here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/7/text , seems ok at first glance and only seems to want to implement nationwide healthcare centers for women. But when you actually look at what these Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers are and mean to offer, it becomes really clear what’s going on.
On the first page of the PDF or booklet that appear when you search for the healthcare centers it is clear that they are supported by pro-life organisations and hold extreme pro-life values. And when you read the (very short) booklet it states their values and services that are to be provided. Among them is a requirement for “Abortion Pill Reversal” and encouragement for “Sterilization Reversal”. The last page clearly states their values, where among them it states that:
“Abortion is not women’s healthcare, because of the damage it causes to women’s physical and emotional health and the destruction of unborn life, many of whom are females. Abortion is usually something women turn to when they feel they do not have another choice. This is a tragedy and the opposite of choice and empowerment.”
And it goes on to list similiar values. The bill to implement these healthcare centers states that:
"That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for women nationwide to have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-affirming, high-quality health care; and
(2) recognizes the high standards established by Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers consortium as standards worth implementing nationwide."
This means that the values that these Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers have are to be set as standards nationwide.
A link to the PDF/booklet about the Pro Women’s Healthcare Centers (PWHC): https://nacn-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/PWHC-Booklet.pdf
He kind of implied it. Later he said that’s not what he meant. But back in 2020, he was saying he would be a “bridge” to a new generation.
Most people assumed that meant a 1 term presidency to buy time to develop talent.
As I said in my edit: The bridge candidate stuff is just fluff to get people to not worry about his age, it doesn’t mean anything. It is certainly not a promise of anything.
Why do you consider something that people assumed to be a promise by Biden?
Because words have meaning and were understood to mean he would be a 1 term presidency.
The simple fact that he didn’t correct that assumption until the run up in 2024 shows he absolutely meant to imply that he would be.
Stop gaslighting. We’re not stupid.
Yes, words have meaning. Biden said “I don’t have any plans on one term.” Why does some vague suggestion of being a ‘bridge’ get you to ignore those very easy to understand words?
To my knowledge, biden never corrected that assumption- which was a commonly voice belief, considering his staff ran with it to persuade hesitant votes wanting somebody who hadn’t been in government longer than most of us have been alive.
so your going to have to drop a source- dated to 2020- showing biden correcting that narrative. Especially when his campaign staffers "leaked’ him saying he would be a 1 term pres privately.
It’s not possible to ignore words that were never actually said, or a campaign that did everything to imply it short of stating it.