Jump to content
BANGKOK 17 July 2019 19:18
webfact

Biden reverses position on federal funding for abortion

Recommended Posts

Biden reverses position on federal funding for abortion

 

2019-06-07T022712Z_2_LYNXNPEF5603Z_RTROPTP_4_USA-ELECTION-BIDEN.JPG

Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tours the Plymouth Area Renewable Energy Initiative in Plymouth, New Hampshire, U.S., June 4, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 

(Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said on Thursday he no longer supported a ban on the use of federal funds for most abortions, reversing course after sharp criticism from abortion-rights proponents.

 

Biden, the front-runner in the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination and a former vice president, said he had changed his long-held position on the Hyde Amendment because the right to an abortion was now under assault in many states and increasingly inaccessible for low-income women.

 

"I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right," Biden said in a speech in Atlanta.

 

"If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's zip code," he said.

 

Biden's support for the Hyde Amendment, which was passed in 1976 and prohibits the use of federal funds for most abortions, put him out of step with much of the rest of the Democratic Party on an emotional issue.

 

Abortion-rights groups, including Planned Parenthood, and a number of Biden's opponents for the Democratic nomination criticized his support for Hyde this week.

 

Abortion has re-emerged as a central national issue in recent weeks as nine states, including Alabama, Georgia and Missouri, passed restrictive laws this year that all but outlaw the procedure.

 

The laws aim to prompt court challenges that would make it to the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court with the hope that it would overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed a woman's right to abortion.

 

(Reporting by Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-07
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Mistakes do happen. Condoms do break. Pills are not 100% effective. Should people stop having sex if they do it for pleasure and don't want kids?

 

I suppose the old time 'Do not mastubate' rule will come back some day. That's like killing millions of children at one go. 

 

 

Not sure what you are supporting. As I said before, I support state funded, on demand, no questions asked abortion in the first trimester.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Since when was killing a healthy foetus a "health care" issue?

I support state funded abortion, no questions asked, but I don't pretend it's anything to do with health, unless the foetus is threatening the mother's life.

If we are honest, most abortions are just removing an inconvenient mistake.

I have qualms about women having to pay, teach them to be more careful next time, I support the right for a woman to have an abortion but that is with a heavy heart

.

 

Though I would say the fella should chip in too.

Edited by Basil B
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Basil B said:

I have qualms about women having to pay, teach them to be more careful next time, I support the right for a woman to have an abortion but that is with a heavy heart, maybe they would be more careful next time.

 

Though I would say the fella should chip in too.

I would agree, except I think there should be less people in the world ( overpopulation ) without a world war, so abortion, free and on demand, is as good a way of getting that as any. I don't want any obstruction to it's availability to any woman.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would agree, except I think there should be less people in the world ( overpopulation ) without a world war, so abortion, free and on demand, is as good a way of getting that as any. I don't want any obstruction to it's availability to any woman.

I love it.  The same people who advocate your position just about crap themselves in order to outlaw allowing those who wish to check out via euthanasia.  Yeah - kill infants, but don't allow terminally ill granddad to have the drugs to check out with dignity and without pain.  But kill the kids.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scorecard said:

no child should come into the world without full uncompromised love and care and support.

What planet do you live on?  Not Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, connda said:

What planet do you live on?  Not Earth.

Well hopefully a planet with more compassion than on your planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...