• Invalid ( Invalid@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 years ago

    This is only meaningful to people on Medicare or Medicaid because Executive Orders only give the President the power to guide federal agencies (in the executive branch).

    It’s a rather meaningless gesture to be honest. If a President can do something via EO then another President can undo it just as easily.

      • It also includes some of the most vulnerable and low income people in the country. People who cannot afford the care for a healthy pregnancy, let alone raising the resulting child(ren), and those who are in situations where they’re at high risk of being raped, like the unhoused. Even if it doesn’t affect my access, I’m pleased that the folks who need this coverage can access it.

      • ArtZuron ( ArtZuron@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 years ago

        An estimated 50% of those are women (who tend to benefit the most from easy contraception). Additionally, these individuals are often poorer, and, as a result, disproportionately of minority populations. Not only is it a fair number of people, but also the people that need the help the most.

    • exohuman ( exohuman@kbin.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      It’s all he can do. Do you think the Republicans are going to accept that? How can they push back women’s rights to a point in which they were just baby machines that cooked if they can choose not to be pregnant?

      • He could be doing a lot more to make contraceptives and even abortion accessible on land under Federal Jurisdiction. He wants to play by the “rules” though.

        There’s nothing stopping him from using executive and federal power in this way except his own fears and a desire to be “normal” at a time when the United States teeters on complete backsliding to it’s worst policies in history.

        • Invalid ( Invalid@kbin.social ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 years ago

          Executive power is very dangerous. Just look what happened when control of the internet was given to the FCC in the name of net neutrality. Executive orders are how the US ends up with a dictator.

    • Snapz ( Snapz@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 years ago

      You’re purposefully trying to downplay impact without any factual support. It’s harder to take away benefits from people than it is to give them. Let the next R president (that of course won’t win the popular vote) try to remove access and take that L with the centrist suburban swing state female voters that often influence elections.

      This isn’t an end all be all solution, but it’s FAR from a meaningless gesture.

      • Invalid ( Invalid@kbin.social ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Baseless personal attacks… nice…

        At least you understood I’m saying it’s not enough but maybe you missed the part that said

        This is only meaningful to people on Medicare or Medicaid

        • adderaline ( ondoyant@beehaw.org ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 years ago

          mmh. i was pretty angry yesterday. don’t really stand by that comment. sorry i assumed ill intent, i was reading too much into it. still think there’s a bit of a point there, though. if its meaningful for people on medicare and medicaid, it isn’t meaningless. it came off pretty dismissive to me.

        • I don’t know that I agree.

          Every time the Democrats should do what they promised, and they don’t, the same people who say we’re better off switch to “but they’re powerless”. It’s silly that people continue to vote for a party that requires them to make excuses in order to feel better about their vote. It just kind of goes over Democratic voters’ heads that we always get conservative outcomes.

          • Mathieu ( mfenniak@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 years ago

            Ultimately this is the fault of the poor democratic system implemented in the US. A truly progressive option can’t be formed because it would split the support of the Democratic Party, leaving the Republicans to take everything in the first-past-the-post voting system. In the absence of electoral reform, or a progressive takeover within the Democrats, or maybe a gigantic scandal that shakes up ether party creating new opportunities… the best option for a progressive voters seems to be to support these idiots rather than letting those idiots in. And the best option for the Democrats as a party that wants power is to cater to the middle and be inoffensive, driving this entire thing into a loop where little of value gets done.