Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Biden/US priorities: Trans Day of Visibility more important than Easter?

78 replies

StealthSpinach · 30/03/2024 22:59

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/slap-in-the-face-to-all-christians-in-america-us-conservatives-fume-over-joe-bidens-latest-move-on-easter-sunday/news-story/d9bf08d345eaff68b431398d09dc3992

Nothing is more important than GI, it is truly the new religion of today…

‘Slap in the face to all Christians in America’: US fumes at Joe Biden’s latest move on Easter Sunday

US conservatives have lashed out over Joe Biden’s proclamation that this year’s Easter Sunday will also officially be the Transgender Day of Visibility.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/slap-in-the-face-to-all-christians-in-america-us-conservatives-fume-over-joe-bidens-latest-move-on-easter-sunday/news-story/d9bf08d345eaff68b431398d09dc3992

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
LoobiJee · 31/03/2024 13:01

Snowjive2 · 31/03/2024 10:29

Yes. He has said several times that if he is re-elected, he will restore Roe v Wade in federal law.

  1. So he hasn’t said “You are loved” to Americans in need of a pregnancy termination?

  2. Why is he dangling that as a “vote for me” carrot, instead of restoring Roe v Wade in Federal law during his presidency?

Justme56 · 31/03/2024 13:05

Surely there are many transgender people who do not want others to know they are trans (hence all the deadnaming, privacy over GRCs, passing etc, etc). I would have thought for those promoting ‘visibility’ would be the last thing they want. It’s all very confusing.

Thelnebriati · 31/03/2024 13:05

I'm sure its a complete coincidence that its the final day of Women's History Month.

Labraradabrador · 31/03/2024 13:08

LoobiJee · 31/03/2024 13:01

  1. So he hasn’t said “You are loved” to Americans in need of a pregnancy termination?

  2. Why is he dangling that as a “vote for me” carrot, instead of restoring Roe v Wade in Federal law during his presidency?

  1. these words specifically? Why? Biden’s stance on abortion has evolved over the past 40 years, but at least since the Obama administration he’s very clearly and consistently supported women’s right to abortion.
  2. because it is not within his power to do so.
LoobiJee · 31/03/2024 13:18

Labraradabrador · 31/03/2024 13:08

  1. these words specifically? Why? Biden’s stance on abortion has evolved over the past 40 years, but at least since the Obama administration he’s very clearly and consistently supported women’s right to abortion.
  2. because it is not within his power to do so.

Why those words specifically? Because those are the specific words used in the Biden declaration posted in the OP, that’s why.

I’m interested to know if Biden has, or previous presidents have, used that phraseology in declarations about other groups of Americans.

It strikes me as unusual wording for a presidential / political statement.

songaboutjam · 31/03/2024 13:23

Labraradabrador · 31/03/2024 12:58

it Is entirely possible to craft a law at the federal level enshrining a woman’s right to an abortion OR a national abortion ban removing the right to abortion in states where it is still legal. I believe legislation has been forward on both sides. To pass such a bill would require a majority in both the House and the Senate, as well as the president’s signature. Since Republicans narrowly control the House, while Democrats control the Senate and Presidency, there is no chance of either happening now. If one party were to gain control of all 3 bodies AND they could maintain party discipline, such a law could be passed after the next election. It is important to note that there is far less party discipline (supporting legislation from your party) than in the UK. There have always been Republicans that oppose an abortion restrictions and Democrats that favour them, and would vote against their party on these and other issues. There is very little the President or others can do to force obedience, so the math is more complicated than simple party majority numbers might indicate.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this and would welcome some enlightenment. How is it possible to craft any kind of federal abortion law if abortion is not already covered by the US Constitution? Wouldn't this fall squarely under Tenth Amendment territory and therefore any bill would be unlawful due to being outside federal government powers?

Thelnebriati · 31/03/2024 13:31

If the Constitution prevents the US having federal laws on human rights issues such as a ban on FGM or child marriage, or providing abortion or contraception; then perhaps it needs a new, modern amendment.

SammyScrounge · 31/03/2024 13:32

MistyGreenAndBlue · 31/03/2024 00:22

Wouldn't it be more of an event to hold a Trans Day of INvisibility.

Now that would be something to see - or not. 😂

😁😁😁

Hoppinggreen · 31/03/2024 13:36

I dont believe people can change sex OR that Jesus was the son of God so I cant bring myself to care either way apart from the fact that this plays into the hands of the MAGA Fascists

SammyScrounge · 31/03/2024 13:53

ResisterRex · 31/03/2024 09:10

True face of trans. We all know how they talk about punching terfs in the face, decapitating us. This one is living the dream.

EsmaCannonball · 31/03/2024 14:26

But surely Jesus only woke himself up because he didn't want to miss Trans Day of Visibility?

Labraradabrador · 31/03/2024 14:34

songaboutjam · 31/03/2024 13:23

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this and would welcome some enlightenment. How is it possible to craft any kind of federal abortion law if abortion is not already covered by the US Constitution? Wouldn't this fall squarely under Tenth Amendment territory and therefore any bill would be unlawful due to being outside federal government powers?

depending on how it is written there is basis for both restricting and protecting abortion access at a national level. It wouldn’t be as simple as writing a law that replicated the exact access parameters under Roe. I believe a great deal of the Democrats proposed legislation relies upon power to regulate commerce, for example. I think there is also an argument that the 14th amendment could still be used as the basis for crafting federal abortion law. Anything passed at a national level (in either direction) would certainly be challenged on basis of 10th amendment, but one thing that both sides seem to agree on is that there IS constitutional scope for further national legislation.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 31/03/2024 15:05

EsmaCannonball · 31/03/2024 14:26

But surely Jesus only woke himself up because he didn't want to miss Trans Day of Visibility?

GrinWine

Abhannmor · 31/03/2024 15:15

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 31/03/2024 08:47

I don't think it's the clash with Easter that is the problem. It's the fact that the trans rights lobby is now so visible that to anyone who isn't already a card carrying member, all this extra visibility is going to do is irritate people.

We already have a whole month of the year for Pride, which now seems to be mainly about all the letters to the right of the LGB, then there's trans history month a few months later, and yet on International Women's Day which is only one day of the year to celebrate half the human population, trans women are also prominently featured. There is no day of the year when trans people and their issues aren't highly visible. The whole thing is just quite tone deaf.

The fact that it clashes with Easter this year is really neither here nor there.

Isn't this meant to be Women's History Month? Can't recall any politicians going on about it.

GenderlessVoid · 31/03/2024 15:52

songaboutjam · 31/03/2024 13:23

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this and would welcome some enlightenment. How is it possible to craft any kind of federal abortion law if abortion is not already covered by the US Constitution? Wouldn't this fall squarely under Tenth Amendment territory and therefore any bill would be unlawful due to being outside federal government powers?

Let me introduce you to the Commerce Clause:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Commerce Clause

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Ereshkigalangcleg · 31/03/2024 15:52

If it was anything like all the various trans recognition days she wouldn't have to google, I can assure you.

Cazpar · 31/03/2024 16:01

Ereshkigalangcleg · 31/03/2024 15:52

If it was anything like all the various trans recognition days she wouldn't have to google, I can assure you.

If OP hadn't got the hump because someone had dared to mention trans people, I doubt any of us would have heard of this proclamation from the White House either.

ResisterRex · 31/03/2024 16:05

Tbh all it made me think of was what Biden did upon being elected. Erasing women. Oh and advancing the interests of Big Pharma 😃

Crankywiddershins · 31/03/2024 16:13

EsmaCannonball · 31/03/2024 14:26

But surely Jesus only woke himself up because he didn't want to miss Trans Day of Visibility?

He didn't "wake up" he came out of the tomb .

ResisterRex · 31/03/2024 18:30

Cranky 😂

Crankywiddershins · 31/03/2024 20:43

ResisterRex · 31/03/2024 18:30

Cranky 😂

But it's true!

songaboutjam · 01/04/2024 01:16

GenderlessVoid · 31/03/2024 15:52

Let me introduce you to the Commerce Clause:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Interesting, thank you for that information!

I guess this is quite a subjective exception to the Tenth, so theoretically a judge could swing either way on whether abortion falls under its remit. They already tried to bring in a firearms law under this clause and it was thrown out at supreme court.

My interpretation of both the law and what people have said here (thanks also to Labraradabrador) is that any ruling on abortion would be very difficult to write into federal law, partly because it would have to be extremely carefully crafted to avoid the fate of Roe v Wade but also because of unpredictable resistance / support from individual Democrats and Republicans, and because actually passing the bill would involve getting it through the House which is Republican controlled. Furthermore it relies on an exemption that may be challenged by future judges.

So theoretically yes it's possible, probably a mistake to base a re-election promise on (tbh, I don't see the Democrats getting control of House, Senate AND Presidency -- I think the country is way too polarised right now), and I think Biden is well aware he is a) not very popular even with his own party and b) this happened under his watch, even if it wasn't his fault.

GenderlessVoid · 01/04/2024 01:57

@songaboutjamInteresting, thank you for that information!

I guess this is quite a subjective exception to the Tenth, so theoretically a judge could swing either way on whether abortion falls under its remit. They already tried to bring in a firearms law under this clause and it was thrown out at supreme court.

Here's a short, informative article about the issue. I agree that getting it through Congress could prove difficult or even impossible.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/01/law-legalizing-abortion-constitutional-challenges/

This one is a bit longer. I really like Congressional Research Services publications. IME they're an excellent, readable source for laws and potential laws

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10787

Codifying Roe: Here are the constitutional challenges a federal law legalizing abortion may face, experts say

Even if a bill making abortion legal nationwide were to be passed, it would face challenges from anti-abortion activists and organizations.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/01/law-legalizing-abortion-constitutional-challenges

Swipe left for the next trending thread