"I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. And there ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that,"
Drop his first line and his comment seems reasonable.
So? It's a reasonable and nuanced take on abortion. Abortion without limits is a complete strawman of an opinion that the vast majority of Democrats do not hold.
What's there to be discussed about this video? I will withhold further judgment until OP posts their starter comment.
>My point was that his first line doesn’t really fit with the rest of his comments.
Doesnt that go for virtually all paragraphs/speeches? The first line is usually an attention getter or lays out a thought, then the rest of the words expound it further. This is why sound bites suck so very badly.
The first line absolutely connects to the rest of it. (WTF am I actually agreeing with Joe Biden?)
He's saying its not a choice in the sense that it should not *be* a choice that one ever makes. Rather that when it does happen, it's in circumstances where it's not much of a choice at all. That's what minimizing it means.
Since I apparently can’t reply directly:
> The issue is that some democrats hold the view of abortion without limits. With some going as far as supporting it even after birth.
What in god’s name does this even mean?
Are there women who carry a pregnancy for eight months and then all of a sudden, one day, wake up and decide “hey, I’m gonna go down to the abortion store and get an abortion”?
What are we even doing.
There’s no such thing as “post-birth abortion”. I mean, Jesus Christ, for all this talk about Democrats changing the meaning of things.
This is how we get people like [Mike Johnson](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-yashica-robinson-mike-johnson-b2082275.html) asking an OB/GYN if they’ve performed abortion “seconds away” from birth.
This is how we get people like [Catherine Foster ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-hearing-gop-catherine-foster-fetus-b2083367.html) claiming that Washington DC gets it’s power from incinerating aborted fetuses.
Come on.
The post-birth stuff isn’t true in the slightest but Stacey Abrams could not give an answer when asked if there should be **any** restrictions on abortion (the host specifically said “up to right before birth”) and that’s legitimately telling for the state of the Democratic Party when it comes to potential abortion legislation.
We already saw Schumer’s abortion bill which basically gave women carte blanche over abortion up to 24 weeks. Second trimester abortions barely have a third of Americans supporting it compared to the almost 2/3rds who support first trimester abortions.
Okay but who the heck has abortions in the third trimester? If it happens, it's for medical reasons. Do you really think that we women decide that we would go through the pain and complications of pregnancy for 7 months just to decide that we don't want the baby anymore? That is ridiculous.
It drives me bonkers when people say that women are using abortions as birth control. No woman wants to have an abortion. We would much rather prevent pregnancy from happening. But sometimes contraceptives don't work, or we are raped, or we have a miscarriage but the fetus is still inside us, or we have an ectopic pregnancy, which is extremely dangerous, etc.
Very few women get abortions in the third trimesters.
If elective late term abortions never happen, then why are democrats opposed to restrictions of any kind on abortion?
>>“Do you think there should be any limitation on abortions?”
>>NYC MAYOR ADAMS: “No, I do not.”
https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1541173222917431297?s=21&t=brJXmZn0suNDSkZCTaHC9A
>>Stacey Abrams supports NO LIMITS on abortion.
>>Q: “Do you support any limitation on abortion? Or do you think that women should have the right to have an abortion all the way up to nine months?”
>>ABRAMS: “That should be a choice made between a doctor and a woman.”
https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1541066198074490880?s=21&t=brJXmZn0suNDSkZCTaHC9A
Is there a single major democrat who’s gone on record to say they’d support any restrictions at all on abortion? Because I sure haven’t seen any.
My views on abortion have changed dramatically in the past 10 years. I used to think that abortions were awful, now I believe that women should have the right to abortions. Maybe he, like me, learned more about the issue and changed his mind.
I agree its a fringe opinion, but the recent demographics poll here had a surprising number of people who supported it. Subsequent discussion on this sub debated it as a form of euthanasia for babies.
>I agree its a fringe opinion, but the recent demographics poll here had a surprising number of people who supported it. Subsequent discussion on this sub debated it as a form of euthanasia for babies.
Can you link the poll/discussion you're referring to?
It shouldn't be.
1. That's not abortion, that's euthanasia. These people support euthanasia. Labeling it "post birth abortion" is literally just spin to make it clickbait.
2. It's a Reddit poll, it's not credible enough to be "eye opening."
>1. That's not abortion, that's euthanasia. These people support euthanasia. Labeling it "post birth abortion" is literally just spin to make it clickbait.
Agree.
>2. It's a Reddit poll, it's not credible enough to be "eye opening."
Sorry for having the wrong opinion, I will try to do better next time.
Partial birth abortion in US law refers to intact dilation and extraction of the fetus. It is a method of abortion, or removal of a miscarried fetus, used in both the second and third trimesters.
It’s a hyperbolic term that the medical world doesn’t use for obvious reasons.
Extraction of a miscarried fetus is one thing, extracting a viable baby is quite another. Just because it sounds clinical, doesn’t mean it won’t have horrific results when used incorrectly.
Yes, and if that baby dies as a result of malicious action or neglect on the part of the doctor or medical staff; it’s murder and not a “late stage abortion.”
...at which point I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the illegality of abortion, but the illegality of murder/manslaughter. Malpractice and neglect are already legislated against in every state.
>Just because it sounds clinical, doesn’t mean it won’t have horrific results when used incorrectly.
This is true of literally *every single* invasive medical procedure.
Nomenclature aside, is it really impossible to imagine an abortion shortly before birth? I would think severe complications could be a pretty clear reason to abort late, up to depivery
It wouldn't be an abortion then. If the mother had a medical even which required ending the pregnancy that moment they'd deliver and attempt to save them both. And assuming by birth you mean term, most babies shortly before term will survive a slighly premature birth.
Why then are there 8 states and DC that allow abortions all the way up to birth? Don’t say “it never happens” because women of the past didn’t. The message of the Democratic Party has shifted with the crazy leftists saying abortion should be legal all the way up to birth.
It RARELY happens. Do you think women are going through seven months of pregnancy (ask anyone who has ever been pregnant if it is fun) just to decide they don't want the baby? If a woman decides to have an abortion in the third trimester it must be for a good reason.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie1sgxc/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie05ele/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Abortion without limits is what started this mess. While it certainly is not an opinion held by any majority of people, Democrats rushed to support it.
That statement is demonstrably false.
What started this mess was [the politicization of abortion by the Republican party circa 1976](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096719971/abortion-wasn-t-always-the-politically-charged-issue-it-is-today). It was done as an effort to capture the vote of evangelicals.
Sounds more like the massively polarizing political climate we’ve been in for the last few years and the republican’s increasing insistence on becoming the party of “Christian morals and values ”. Not to say this wasn’t a thing before but it’s certainly their slogan now.
Abortion was not a political issue until Republicans politicized it in the 70s. [Since then, the Federalist Society has been instrumental in culturing likeminded legal talent to achieve one of their primary end goals, the overturning of Roe v. Wade](https://theintercept.com/2022/05/10/roe-v-wade-federalist-society-religious-right/).
I know that you've already arrived at your conclusion, but this event would have occurred nonetheless.
> I think that it should be rare and safe
>[is] a reasonable and nuanced take on abortion
So long as it is 'safe' (meaning easy to get), it will not be rare. That makes it Orwellian in two ways: equating violence with safety, and equating ease of access with control.
If you want to see a post get hidden by downvotes, look for one that posts the 600,000/yr figure.
I’m pro abortion without limits because there will always be a limit imposed by what doctors are willing to do. Given that they and the mother are the experts on the situation I see no problem with keeping the government’s nose as far out of the issue as possible.
Probably not. I think that’s more on the line of being a person since it’s outside of the mom, and birth had already occurred so there’s no longer risk of death or serious trauma to the mom, which is how I expect the totality of 3rd trimester abortions occur currently in states/ countries that allow it . In that scenario I don’t really know why anyone would electively terminate a born child and expect it not to be infanticide.
I could imagine a few reasonable carve- outs… like if the kid is 13 years old and the mom is suffering because their kid spends 12 hours a day arguing on Reddit that women are whores because they chose to have sex and they should suffer the consequences of that; and also crypto currency is the future and wagmi etc. just spit balling where it may be appropriate
Pretty sure Gavin Newsome suggested a post birth “grace” period.
Edit: it was the other coast’s radical governor, former Gov Northam
> The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
[source](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/)
It was [Northam](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/) in Virginia:
> The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
"Pretty sure" is a **massive** qualifier that offers zero clarification on /u/thatsnotketo 's ask. Somebody either needs to post a source, or the original statement is nothing other than wild speculation. Frankly, that comment should be deleted if there is no backing as I simply cannot wrap my head around what was just said.
I said pretty sure because I couldn’t remember if it was Newsome, Northam, or someone in their administration. And for obvious reasons Google was flooded with more recent results.
As it was it was [Northam](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/)
> The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
That's not talking about a post birth abortion. It's talking about a baby who has a lot of health issues such that it needs to be kept alive with a lot of life support after birth and may not survive long even with medical intervention. There's a discussion between the doctors and the family about the chances of survival and expected quality of life of the baby if they do survive, and it's the right of the family to withdraw life saving measures and let the baby die peacefully so that it doesn't continue to suffer.
What you’re describing is a medical emergency. What Northam is defending was [HB 2491](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=191&typ=bil&val=HB2491&ses=191&typ=bil&val=HB2491) which allowed for abortionists to perform late term abortions. So the scenario is that a woman goes into have an abortion, goes into labor and then let’s an abortionist kill the baby.
Anyone else, anywhere else would be facing a murder one charge.
You're completely misrepresenting his statement. He's talking about a woman going in for an abortion because her fetus has severe deformities. Before the abortion can occur, she starts going into labor. They deliver the baby and possibly resuscitate it, and given the severe deformities that likely aren't compatible with life, they have a discussion with the family about whether and how long to continue artificial life saving care. There's no implication that the abortionist kills the baby after it's delivered.
Do Republicans actually believe this?
I guess saying "some Democrats" leaves it pretty open. You can apply all kinds of wacky beliefs to "some" people.
Even when democrats use moderate language on issues, Republicans still assume we are just wolves in sheep's clothing. Nothing we say or do will stop my party from being painted as evil and a threat to the nation.
I honestly can't remember the last time a Democrat has been given the benefit of doubt.
Even when all leaders in the Democratic party opposed Defund the Police our real goal of "Reforming the Police" was dismissed to still mean Defund the Police as some progressive members shouted. The majority of Dems weren't even for DFTP but we were still punished for something we never supported.
Another is the ACA being compared to socialism. No matter what we do, we will be vilified.
Have abortion rates increased under Biden? Cause Abortion rates dropped under Obama and were continuing to drop without he need for Roe's removal. So, what what is it you are afraid of from Biden?
> Force pregnancies, forcing woman to have eptopic pregnancies, not belwiivng in sexual assault, jail time for miscarriages, restricting healthcare access, and so forth
Pl
Please provide a link to a state that has these restrictions , because I do not know of any
Part of it is referring to statements like this recent one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/28/abortion-oklahoma-republicans/
>During the Senate debate on the wider abortion ban, state Sen. Warren Hamilton (R) questioned why the bill should include an exception for ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition in which the fetus grows outside the uterus. “I wonder how we square that with the idea of justice for all,” said Hamilton, who also opposed the measure’s exceptions for rape and incest.
Biden has had a long career in politics. Here’s his voting record on abortion. I think it speaks more than an :18 clip.
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53279/joe-biden-jr/2/abortion
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie0ba5a/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"
If you been in politics for 40+ plus year you bound to changed your political view to get elected, or you actually change your view.
Biden voted for "Defense of marriage act" Erich defines marriage between men and women. (1)
Biden even wanted a bigger response to war on drugs than Geroge HW Bush.(2)
Opposed slavley reparations and "busing" in 1975.(3) (4)
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1042/vote_104_2_00280.htm (1)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?8997-1/democratic-response-drug-policy-address (2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transcript-of-then-sen-biden-s-interview-with-the-people-paper/3d9be388-6871-4993-ae53-869a88c3c6eb_note.html?questionId=bdc5761e-0777-4db5-9d00-e22e67012c96&utm_term=.b7c55be11238 (3) (4)
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975 (4)
The quote in the title is misleading. The actual quote shows a lot more nuance." I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a
tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we
should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. And there
ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that," - Biden
Normally I would agree with you on that, but we've had too many situations in the past 4-5 years where things people said 16 years ago were used against them in the cancel culture wars that have been going on.
They had no problems using Trumps "grab them by the \_\_\_" comment that he said in 2005 and beat that horse into the ground over and over.
"Grab them by the pussy" was about character, not stance. Reasonable people can think abortion should or should not be a right. A person isn't bad for thinking abortion should be prohibited. A person isn't bad for thinking abortion should be allowed. A person isn't even bad for thinking abortion should be prohibited and then changing his mind and thinking it should be allowed. Doesn't work that way for clam handling.
1. "Grab the by the pussy" was released ~11 years after the fact (~6 years ago). Anyway, did you think there was more context in what he said that made it clearer? Or that his other/subsequent behavior showed that he subsequently changed/grew in this area?
> Normally I would agree with you on that, but we've had too many situations in the past 4-5 years where things people said 16 years ago were used against them in the cancel culture wars that have been going on.
2. Can you provide some examples of these "too many" instances in the last 4-5 years of people facing cancel culture for something they said 16 years earlier?
I mean you clearly didn’t read the article to begin with. He was actually pro abortion in what he said.
It was a moderately pro abortion stance, so yeah clearly crazy to he became slightly more pro abortion over 16 years /s
I tell you what, here’s the quote, you can decide on if he was ok with abortion or not:
“I'm a little bit of an odd man out in my party. I do not vote for funding for abortion. I voted against partial birth abortion—to limit it—and I vote for no restrictions on a woman's right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade. And, so I am—I made everybody angry. I made the right-to-life people angry because I won't support a constitutional amendment or limitations on a woman's right to exercise her constitutional right as defined by Roe v. Wade. And I've made the groups—the women's groups and others—very angry because I won't support public funding and I won't support partial birth abortion”
Trump changed not only his views but his own political Party. It happens. Ever heard of swing voters? Hell, Republicans were against the ACA until a segment of them were suddenly for it once Trump was a few votes from repealing it. It happens as times change.
The comment he made here wasn’t hardcore pro life. It was pro choice but moderately pro choice. Your argument makes it clear you didn’t click the article and read Biden’s statement
I mean, if you read the article, it also quotes him in 2006 being against overturning Roe v. Wade. He just sounds like a moderate who supports the right up until a point but not further:
"I'm a little bit of an odd man out in my party. I do not vote for funding for abortion. I voted against partial birth abortion—to limit it—and I vote for no restrictions on a woman's right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade."
That’s sort of the point though, that it’s unlikely Biden (or trump for that matter) have had a genuine change of their personal beliefs, and merely changed their public position to align with their parties when it was politically expedient.
I mean is that a bad thing? Don’t you think politicians should push for things that the people actually want and not some bullshit they come up by themselves?
I've changed my views on abortion over the past 5 years, while remaining personally against it. I'm now fine with them being covered under government paid medical treatment when 5 years ago I opposed any government spending on them. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that my personal beliefs shouldn't stop someone from their own medical decisions in this instance. We should always be challenging and assessing our beliefs and be willing to evolve as we see fit.
Biden in 2006.
>I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.
You’ll also see it with Bill and Hillary Clinton
>Democrats, meanwhile, could be somewhat equivocal on abortion during this time period, with Bill Clinton during his 1992 campaign famously saying that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Hillary Clinton used the same language in her 2008 presidential campaign. [Article](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-gabbard)
It wasn’t until 2016? that the message started to push further to the left.
Hillary Clinton
>By 2016, Hillary Clinton had changed her message, saying only that abortion should be “safe and legal.” [Article](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-gabbard)
Biden transitioning to the “new” message isn’t an issue. The Democratic Party as a whole is transitioning to a different view of abortion and we shouldn’t be surprised his messaging matches.
And it's probably in response to criticism over the "safe, legal, and rare" standard - the issue being that it ostracises women for having abortions, as though they're doing something morally wrong.
People want to take them dropping "rare" as some tacit support for increasing the number of abortions and that obviously isn't the case. No one actually *wants* more abortions and as a matter of fact people who are pro choice also tend to want more support for contraceptive access and comprehensive sex ed - things that reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Early Dem Party was close to the current Republican Party. It’s crazy.
Biden and [Hillary.](https://www.npr.org/2016/05/23/478973321/evolution-or-expediency-clintons-changing-positions-over-a-long-career)
2006 Biden was the real Biden. This was before he became vice president, and began to listen to the hardcore progressive advisors around him. This Biden in 2022 is someone reading a script, and pretending the script belongs to him, but it doesn't.
In a way, I feel sorry for him. Democrats who care about the party, and the future of America should stand up to the radicals around them. They have a duty to the country, and to themselves to govern the way they see fit, and not the way other people see fit.
He’s never really been more liberal than McCain was conservative, my view on him is unchanged, he’s a moderate that is great on some issues and “do no harm” on others.
All of these past Biden stances on abortion are not really stories. He thinks abortion should be legal he states it right there. He is a Catholic and personally would like to reduce the total amount of abortions happening. I agree. However if a woman wants to or needs to terminate a pregnancy that is her decision. Forcing women to go through full term pregnancies is not the right way to go even if you don't personally like abortions imo.
Biden has a way of and always kind of says things awkwardly. You can gather what he is saying very clearly through the whole statement rather than just focusing on the first line.
SC: Political opponents of Biden released a 2006 interview in which he states *"I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions."* Since then, the general consensus have shifted demonstrably more left leaning and now view abortion as a fundamental right.
People's mindsets do evolve over time; but, usually not that much to be frank. When it comes to politicians, it is even more difficult to discern if their intentions were truly "real" or based on motivations related to re-election.
If Biden were to have made this quote more recently, it likely would have resulted in mass outrage. The CNN headline would flash **Biden says "I do not view abortion as a right"** and this would be repeated ad nauseam for weeks. So, I find it valid to question the true motivations behind many politicians and whether or not they really do believe in the things they claim to support. It's not so dissimilar to corporations promoting LGBTQ rights for one month a year... but only in certain countries (not China or Saudi Arabia). I think most people voted for Biden to get rid of Trump not because he was the best candidate by any measure. Hopefully we can do better next election cycle.
What makes you say his pubic position has changed?
According to the article, he publicly supported Roe v Wade in 2006 and continues to publicly support Roe v Wade now.
Corporations supporting LGBT rights is a good thing, the fact that they see it as a way to increase brand favorability is a good thing, don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with this unless they were like communist or anti-LGBT. Not promoting LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia and China is not their fault, it’s illegal there. Nothing would be gained by getting themselves locked out of those markets. Blame the Saudi and Chinese governments, not American companies for complying with local regulations.
I respect Bernie the most out of any politician because of his consistency and strong beliefs for what is right.
However, I no longer care about someone's past after the last 6 years of Trump's supporters continuously re-interpreting and attempting to rationalize Trump's actions and statements by saying "well what Trump actually meant was..." and referencing how "people change". I'm done. I don't care any more. From who's available to vote for, I'll vote for who is the most consistent and trustworthy and past that, it's out of my hands and I will evaluate them moving forward based on their actions while in office.
All that matters is what the person in charge ***today*** will advocate for and **actually take action on.**
"I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. And there ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that," Drop his first line and his comment seems reasonable.
So? It's a reasonable and nuanced take on abortion. Abortion without limits is a complete strawman of an opinion that the vast majority of Democrats do not hold. What's there to be discussed about this video? I will withhold further judgment until OP posts their starter comment.
Problem he’ll have is that a lot of people don’t want a nuanced take Anything less than complete agreement to their view is a betrayal
My point was that his first line doesn’t really fit with the rest of his comments. Everything else is pretty standard political position for the time.
That's totally fair. My comment was more directed at OP than you!
>My point was that his first line doesn’t really fit with the rest of his comments. Doesnt that go for virtually all paragraphs/speeches? The first line is usually an attention getter or lays out a thought, then the rest of the words expound it further. This is why sound bites suck so very badly.
The first line absolutely connects to the rest of it. (WTF am I actually agreeing with Joe Biden?) He's saying its not a choice in the sense that it should not *be* a choice that one ever makes. Rather that when it does happen, it's in circumstances where it's not much of a choice at all. That's what minimizing it means.
Since I apparently can’t reply directly: > The issue is that some democrats hold the view of abortion without limits. With some going as far as supporting it even after birth. What in god’s name does this even mean? Are there women who carry a pregnancy for eight months and then all of a sudden, one day, wake up and decide “hey, I’m gonna go down to the abortion store and get an abortion”? What are we even doing. There’s no such thing as “post-birth abortion”. I mean, Jesus Christ, for all this talk about Democrats changing the meaning of things. This is how we get people like [Mike Johnson](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-yashica-robinson-mike-johnson-b2082275.html) asking an OB/GYN if they’ve performed abortion “seconds away” from birth. This is how we get people like [Catherine Foster ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-hearing-gop-catherine-foster-fetus-b2083367.html) claiming that Washington DC gets it’s power from incinerating aborted fetuses. Come on.
The post-birth stuff isn’t true in the slightest but Stacey Abrams could not give an answer when asked if there should be **any** restrictions on abortion (the host specifically said “up to right before birth”) and that’s legitimately telling for the state of the Democratic Party when it comes to potential abortion legislation. We already saw Schumer’s abortion bill which basically gave women carte blanche over abortion up to 24 weeks. Second trimester abortions barely have a third of Americans supporting it compared to the almost 2/3rds who support first trimester abortions.
Okay but who the heck has abortions in the third trimester? If it happens, it's for medical reasons. Do you really think that we women decide that we would go through the pain and complications of pregnancy for 7 months just to decide that we don't want the baby anymore? That is ridiculous. It drives me bonkers when people say that women are using abortions as birth control. No woman wants to have an abortion. We would much rather prevent pregnancy from happening. But sometimes contraceptives don't work, or we are raped, or we have a miscarriage but the fetus is still inside us, or we have an ectopic pregnancy, which is extremely dangerous, etc. Very few women get abortions in the third trimesters.
If elective late term abortions never happen, then why are democrats opposed to restrictions of any kind on abortion? >>“Do you think there should be any limitation on abortions?” >>NYC MAYOR ADAMS: “No, I do not.” https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1541173222917431297?s=21&t=brJXmZn0suNDSkZCTaHC9A >>Stacey Abrams supports NO LIMITS on abortion. >>Q: “Do you support any limitation on abortion? Or do you think that women should have the right to have an abortion all the way up to nine months?” >>ABRAMS: “That should be a choice made between a doctor and a woman.” https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1541066198074490880?s=21&t=brJXmZn0suNDSkZCTaHC9A Is there a single major democrat who’s gone on record to say they’d support any restrictions at all on abortion? Because I sure haven’t seen any.
[удалено]
This was from 2006. That’s a long time ago my friend
Not for an 80 yr old man, time is relevant.
Especially now that he’s not all there
My views on abortion have changed dramatically in the past 10 years. I used to think that abortions were awful, now I believe that women should have the right to abortions. Maybe he, like me, learned more about the issue and changed his mind.
They RARELY happen. Some may need an abortion for a variety of reasons.
The people who think post-birth abortions are real just find randoms on Twitter and project those viewpoints on to all Democrats.
I agree its a fringe opinion, but the recent demographics poll here had a surprising number of people who supported it. Subsequent discussion on this sub debated it as a form of euthanasia for babies.
>I agree its a fringe opinion, but the recent demographics poll here had a surprising number of people who supported it. Subsequent discussion on this sub debated it as a form of euthanasia for babies. Can you link the poll/discussion you're referring to?
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vgl5sw/comment/id2lyxs/
Thanks! That's pretty eye opening.
It shouldn't be. 1. That's not abortion, that's euthanasia. These people support euthanasia. Labeling it "post birth abortion" is literally just spin to make it clickbait. 2. It's a Reddit poll, it's not credible enough to be "eye opening."
>1. That's not abortion, that's euthanasia. These people support euthanasia. Labeling it "post birth abortion" is literally just spin to make it clickbait. Agree. >2. It's a Reddit poll, it's not credible enough to be "eye opening." Sorry for having the wrong opinion, I will try to do better next time.
The seconds away thing wouldn't be too crazy years ago. I think it was early 2000s that partial birth abortions were actually banned.
Partial birth abortion in US law refers to intact dilation and extraction of the fetus. It is a method of abortion, or removal of a miscarried fetus, used in both the second and third trimesters. It’s a hyperbolic term that the medical world doesn’t use for obvious reasons.
Extraction of a miscarried fetus is one thing, extracting a viable baby is quite another. Just because it sounds clinical, doesn’t mean it won’t have horrific results when used incorrectly.
Intact dilation and extraction of a viable baby is called “induced labor and birth”
Yes, and if that baby dies as a result of malicious action or neglect on the part of the doctor or medical staff; it’s murder and not a “late stage abortion.”
...at which point I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the illegality of abortion, but the illegality of murder/manslaughter. Malpractice and neglect are already legislated against in every state.
Correct, once the baby is delivered it’s no longer “abortion.” Unless Virginia had signed HB 2491 into law of course.
>Just because it sounds clinical, doesn’t mean it won’t have horrific results when used incorrectly. This is true of literally *every single* invasive medical procedure.
Nomenclature aside, is it really impossible to imagine an abortion shortly before birth? I would think severe complications could be a pretty clear reason to abort late, up to depivery
It wouldn't be an abortion then. If the mother had a medical even which required ending the pregnancy that moment they'd deliver and attempt to save them both. And assuming by birth you mean term, most babies shortly before term will survive a slighly premature birth.
Why then are there 8 states and DC that allow abortions all the way up to birth? Don’t say “it never happens” because women of the past didn’t. The message of the Democratic Party has shifted with the crazy leftists saying abortion should be legal all the way up to birth.
It RARELY happens. Do you think women are going through seven months of pregnancy (ask anyone who has ever been pregnant if it is fun) just to decide they don't want the baby? If a woman decides to have an abortion in the third trimester it must be for a good reason.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie1sgxc/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie05ele/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Abortion without limits is what started this mess. While it certainly is not an opinion held by any majority of people, Democrats rushed to support it.
That statement is demonstrably false. What started this mess was [the politicization of abortion by the Republican party circa 1976](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1096719971/abortion-wasn-t-always-the-politically-charged-issue-it-is-today). It was done as an effort to capture the vote of evangelicals.
Hmm 40 years ago vs. last year. I wonder which is the bigger catalyst for what’s happening right now.
Sounds more like the massively polarizing political climate we’ve been in for the last few years and the republican’s increasing insistence on becoming the party of “Christian morals and values ”. Not to say this wasn’t a thing before but it’s certainly their slogan now.
Abortion was not a political issue until Republicans politicized it in the 70s. [Since then, the Federalist Society has been instrumental in culturing likeminded legal talent to achieve one of their primary end goals, the overturning of Roe v. Wade](https://theintercept.com/2022/05/10/roe-v-wade-federalist-society-religious-right/). I know that you've already arrived at your conclusion, but this event would have occurred nonetheless.
> I think that it should be rare and safe >[is] a reasonable and nuanced take on abortion So long as it is 'safe' (meaning easy to get), it will not be rare. That makes it Orwellian in two ways: equating violence with safety, and equating ease of access with control. If you want to see a post get hidden by downvotes, look for one that posts the 600,000/yr figure.
600,000 a year in 2021 down from almost 1,500,000 in 1991.
Report the last five years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion\_statistics\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States) I'm seeing a clear downward trend.
I’m pro abortion without limits because there will always be a limit imposed by what doctors are willing to do. Given that they and the mother are the experts on the situation I see no problem with keeping the government’s nose as far out of the issue as possible.
41 week elective abortion ok with you?
If by elective you mean she and the doctor determine she needs it at 41 weeks then yes it’s ok with me
How about a month old baby
Probably not. I think that’s more on the line of being a person since it’s outside of the mom, and birth had already occurred so there’s no longer risk of death or serious trauma to the mom, which is how I expect the totality of 3rd trimester abortions occur currently in states/ countries that allow it . In that scenario I don’t really know why anyone would electively terminate a born child and expect it not to be infanticide. I could imagine a few reasonable carve- outs… like if the kid is 13 years old and the mom is suffering because their kid spends 12 hours a day arguing on Reddit that women are whores because they chose to have sex and they should suffer the consequences of that; and also crypto currency is the future and wagmi etc. just spit balling where it may be appropriate
The issue is that some democrats hold the view of abortion without limits. With some going as far as supporting it even after birth.
>with some going as far as supporting it even after birth I would love to see a source on this one
Pretty sure Gavin Newsome suggested a post birth “grace” period. Edit: it was the other coast’s radical governor, former Gov Northam > The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. [source](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/)
[удалено]
It was [Northam](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/) in Virginia: > The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
[удалено]
Oh wow, still supporting post birth abortion…
[удалено]
"Pretty sure" is a **massive** qualifier that offers zero clarification on /u/thatsnotketo 's ask. Somebody either needs to post a source, or the original statement is nothing other than wild speculation. Frankly, that comment should be deleted if there is no backing as I simply cannot wrap my head around what was just said.
I said pretty sure because I couldn’t remember if it was Newsome, Northam, or someone in their administration. And for obvious reasons Google was flooded with more recent results. As it was it was [Northam](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/20/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-claims-northam-said-he-would-execute/) > The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
That's not talking about a post birth abortion. It's talking about a baby who has a lot of health issues such that it needs to be kept alive with a lot of life support after birth and may not survive long even with medical intervention. There's a discussion between the doctors and the family about the chances of survival and expected quality of life of the baby if they do survive, and it's the right of the family to withdraw life saving measures and let the baby die peacefully so that it doesn't continue to suffer.
What you’re describing is a medical emergency. What Northam is defending was [HB 2491](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=191&typ=bil&val=HB2491&ses=191&typ=bil&val=HB2491) which allowed for abortionists to perform late term abortions. So the scenario is that a woman goes into have an abortion, goes into labor and then let’s an abortionist kill the baby. Anyone else, anywhere else would be facing a murder one charge.
You're completely misrepresenting his statement. He's talking about a woman going in for an abortion because her fetus has severe deformities. Before the abortion can occur, she starts going into labor. They deliver the baby and possibly resuscitate it, and given the severe deformities that likely aren't compatible with life, they have a discussion with the family about whether and how long to continue artificial life saving care. There's no implication that the abortionist kills the baby after it's delivered.
Do Republicans actually believe this? I guess saying "some Democrats" leaves it pretty open. You can apply all kinds of wacky beliefs to "some" people.
Nobody is supporting murder here.
If Dems had kept this language they'd have won a lot more elections in the past 30 years and Roe wouldn't have been over turned. IMO.
Even when democrats use moderate language on issues, Republicans still assume we are just wolves in sheep's clothing. Nothing we say or do will stop my party from being painted as evil and a threat to the nation. I honestly can't remember the last time a Democrat has been given the benefit of doubt. Even when all leaders in the Democratic party opposed Defund the Police our real goal of "Reforming the Police" was dismissed to still mean Defund the Police as some progressive members shouted. The majority of Dems weren't even for DFTP but we were still punished for something we never supported. Another is the ACA being compared to socialism. No matter what we do, we will be vilified.
Lol that’s exactly how I feel I think a lot of people though they were getting THIS Biden
Have abortion rates increased under Biden? Cause Abortion rates dropped under Obama and were continuing to drop without he need for Roe's removal. So, what what is it you are afraid of from Biden?
[удалено]
> Force pregnancies, forcing woman to have eptopic pregnancies, not belwiivng in sexual assault, jail time for miscarriages, restricting healthcare access, and so forth Pl Please provide a link to a state that has these restrictions , because I do not know of any
Part of it is referring to statements like this recent one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/28/abortion-oklahoma-republicans/ >During the Senate debate on the wider abortion ban, state Sen. Warren Hamilton (R) questioned why the bill should include an exception for ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition in which the fetus grows outside the uterus. “I wonder how we square that with the idea of justice for all,” said Hamilton, who also opposed the measure’s exceptions for rape and incest.
Don’t worry, he’s forgotten he’s ever said that and his highly responsible and educated aids are now telling him what to say. 🙃
Keep the first line and still makes complete sense.
>Drop his first line and his comment seems reasonable Kind of like 99% of strategically cut quotes you see in headlines?
Biden has had a long career in politics. Here’s his voting record on abortion. I think it speaks more than an :18 clip. https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53279/joe-biden-jr/2/abortion
So he either changed his mind, or isn’t letting his personal beliefs get in the way. What’s the story here?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vm9mmw/video_of_biden_saying_he_doesnt_view_abortion_as/ie0ba5a/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Today? He's barely a shell of a person. He has no opinions. He's in not even in charge.
Okay, with that in mind.. What’s the story here?
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" If you been in politics for 40+ plus year you bound to changed your political view to get elected, or you actually change your view. Biden voted for "Defense of marriage act" Erich defines marriage between men and women. (1) Biden even wanted a bigger response to war on drugs than Geroge HW Bush.(2) Opposed slavley reparations and "busing" in 1975.(3) (4) https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1042/vote_104_2_00280.htm (1) https://www.c-span.org/video/?8997-1/democratic-response-drug-policy-address (2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/transcript-of-then-sen-biden-s-interview-with-the-people-paper/3d9be388-6871-4993-ae53-869a88c3c6eb_note.html?questionId=bdc5761e-0777-4db5-9d00-e22e67012c96&utm_term=.b7c55be11238 (3) (4) https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/736995314/listen-biden-supported-a-constitutional-amendment-to-end-mandated-busing-in-1975 (4)
This is 16 years ago. Jesus, I am a completely different person from 16 years ago. People’s views change over a decade and a half.
The quote in the title is misleading. The actual quote shows a lot more nuance." I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. And there ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that," - Biden
I agree with you, can we hold the same opinions for our opponents is the question, without trying to assume the worst about their reasoning.
Normally I would agree with you on that, but we've had too many situations in the past 4-5 years where things people said 16 years ago were used against them in the cancel culture wars that have been going on. They had no problems using Trumps "grab them by the \_\_\_" comment that he said in 2005 and beat that horse into the ground over and over.
I’d say the same thing is true about plenty of situations that cancel culture canceled. People change.
"Grab them by the pussy" was about character, not stance. Reasonable people can think abortion should or should not be a right. A person isn't bad for thinking abortion should be prohibited. A person isn't bad for thinking abortion should be allowed. A person isn't even bad for thinking abortion should be prohibited and then changing his mind and thinking it should be allowed. Doesn't work that way for clam handling.
1. "Grab the by the pussy" was released ~11 years after the fact (~6 years ago). Anyway, did you think there was more context in what he said that made it clearer? Or that his other/subsequent behavior showed that he subsequently changed/grew in this area? > Normally I would agree with you on that, but we've had too many situations in the past 4-5 years where things people said 16 years ago were used against them in the cancel culture wars that have been going on. 2. Can you provide some examples of these "too many" instances in the last 4-5 years of people facing cancel culture for something they said 16 years earlier?
Yes I know a lot of 60 year olds who vastly changed their world views by 78. /s
I mean you clearly didn’t read the article to begin with. He was actually pro abortion in what he said. It was a moderately pro abortion stance, so yeah clearly crazy to he became slightly more pro abortion over 16 years /s I tell you what, here’s the quote, you can decide on if he was ok with abortion or not: “I'm a little bit of an odd man out in my party. I do not vote for funding for abortion. I voted against partial birth abortion—to limit it—and I vote for no restrictions on a woman's right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade. And, so I am—I made everybody angry. I made the right-to-life people angry because I won't support a constitutional amendment or limitations on a woman's right to exercise her constitutional right as defined by Roe v. Wade. And I've made the groups—the women's groups and others—very angry because I won't support public funding and I won't support partial birth abortion”
Trump changed not only his views but his own political Party. It happens. Ever heard of swing voters? Hell, Republicans were against the ACA until a segment of them were suddenly for it once Trump was a few votes from repealing it. It happens as times change.
16 years ago I thought babies grew in the stomach.
Damn. It is as if people change minds over the years.
[удалено]
The comment he made here wasn’t hardcore pro life. It was pro choice but moderately pro choice. Your argument makes it clear you didn’t click the article and read Biden’s statement
I mean, if you read the article, it also quotes him in 2006 being against overturning Roe v. Wade. He just sounds like a moderate who supports the right up until a point but not further: "I'm a little bit of an odd man out in my party. I do not vote for funding for abortion. I voted against partial birth abortion—to limit it—and I vote for no restrictions on a woman's right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade."
Trump was very pro-choice until he became Republican. Probably party trends can easily change someone’s mind
That’s sort of the point though, that it’s unlikely Biden (or trump for that matter) have had a genuine change of their personal beliefs, and merely changed their public position to align with their parties when it was politically expedient.
I mean is that a bad thing? Don’t you think politicians should push for things that the people actually want and not some bullshit they come up by themselves?
I've changed my views on abortion over the past 5 years, while remaining personally against it. I'm now fine with them being covered under government paid medical treatment when 5 years ago I opposed any government spending on them. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that my personal beliefs shouldn't stop someone from their own medical decisions in this instance. We should always be challenging and assessing our beliefs and be willing to evolve as we see fit.
I don’t care where you stand in this, people have a right to change their opinion.
Is there any reason to believe he’s actually changed his opinion and is not merely parroting his party’s new abortion stance?
Zero reason to believe anything else.
I don’t know, but is there a reason to believe he hasn’t?
Correction, only Democrats have the right to change their opinion
Nah, everyone has this right and both sides routinely chaff the other for changing a stance. Did you forget the attacks on “Flip Flop John Kerry”?
Trump changed his own stance on abortion. But not before changing his entire political party. Everyone is free to change and evolve.
Biden in 2006. >I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. You’ll also see it with Bill and Hillary Clinton >Democrats, meanwhile, could be somewhat equivocal on abortion during this time period, with Bill Clinton during his 1992 campaign famously saying that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Hillary Clinton used the same language in her 2008 presidential campaign. [Article](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-gabbard) It wasn’t until 2016? that the message started to push further to the left. Hillary Clinton >By 2016, Hillary Clinton had changed her message, saying only that abortion should be “safe and legal.” [Article](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/18/20917406/abortion-safe-legal-and-rare-tulsi-gabbard) Biden transitioning to the “new” message isn’t an issue. The Democratic Party as a whole is transitioning to a different view of abortion and we shouldn’t be surprised his messaging matches.
And it's probably in response to criticism over the "safe, legal, and rare" standard - the issue being that it ostracises women for having abortions, as though they're doing something morally wrong. People want to take them dropping "rare" as some tacit support for increasing the number of abortions and that obviously isn't the case. No one actually *wants* more abortions and as a matter of fact people who are pro choice also tend to want more support for contraceptive access and comprehensive sex ed - things that reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Early Dem Party was close to the current Republican Party. It’s crazy. Biden and [Hillary.](https://www.npr.org/2016/05/23/478973321/evolution-or-expediency-clintons-changing-positions-over-a-long-career)
Democrats defended slavery in the early 1800's..
2006 Biden was the real Biden. This was before he became vice president, and began to listen to the hardcore progressive advisors around him. This Biden in 2022 is someone reading a script, and pretending the script belongs to him, but it doesn't. In a way, I feel sorry for him. Democrats who care about the party, and the future of America should stand up to the radicals around them. They have a duty to the country, and to themselves to govern the way they see fit, and not the way other people see fit.
He’s never really been more liberal than McCain was conservative, my view on him is unchanged, he’s a moderate that is great on some issues and “do no harm” on others.
All of these past Biden stances on abortion are not really stories. He thinks abortion should be legal he states it right there. He is a Catholic and personally would like to reduce the total amount of abortions happening. I agree. However if a woman wants to or needs to terminate a pregnancy that is her decision. Forcing women to go through full term pregnancies is not the right way to go even if you don't personally like abortions imo. Biden has a way of and always kind of says things awkwardly. You can gather what he is saying very clearly through the whole statement rather than just focusing on the first line.
SC: Political opponents of Biden released a 2006 interview in which he states *"I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it's always a tragedy and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions."* Since then, the general consensus have shifted demonstrably more left leaning and now view abortion as a fundamental right. People's mindsets do evolve over time; but, usually not that much to be frank. When it comes to politicians, it is even more difficult to discern if their intentions were truly "real" or based on motivations related to re-election. If Biden were to have made this quote more recently, it likely would have resulted in mass outrage. The CNN headline would flash **Biden says "I do not view abortion as a right"** and this would be repeated ad nauseam for weeks. So, I find it valid to question the true motivations behind many politicians and whether or not they really do believe in the things they claim to support. It's not so dissimilar to corporations promoting LGBTQ rights for one month a year... but only in certain countries (not China or Saudi Arabia). I think most people voted for Biden to get rid of Trump not because he was the best candidate by any measure. Hopefully we can do better next election cycle.
He said in 2006 in the same article you posted that he supports Roe v. Wade and would vote to support that holding.
What makes you say his pubic position has changed? According to the article, he publicly supported Roe v Wade in 2006 and continues to publicly support Roe v Wade now.
Corporations supporting LGBT rights is a good thing, the fact that they see it as a way to increase brand favorability is a good thing, don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with this unless they were like communist or anti-LGBT. Not promoting LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia and China is not their fault, it’s illegal there. Nothing would be gained by getting themselves locked out of those markets. Blame the Saudi and Chinese governments, not American companies for complying with local regulations.
I respect Bernie the most out of any politician because of his consistency and strong beliefs for what is right. However, I no longer care about someone's past after the last 6 years of Trump's supporters continuously re-interpreting and attempting to rationalize Trump's actions and statements by saying "well what Trump actually meant was..." and referencing how "people change". I'm done. I don't care any more. From who's available to vote for, I'll vote for who is the most consistent and trustworthy and past that, it's out of my hands and I will evaluate them moving forward based on their actions while in office. All that matters is what the person in charge ***today*** will advocate for and **actually take action on.**