meowMix2525
We’ve been saying this shit since 2020. Those complaints just haven’t really been acknowledged by democrats until recently when they started running out of ways to plausibly deny it. They quelled it in 2020 by implying he would be only a 1 term president and, using the same existential threats as they’re relying on now, they barely eeked out a win that mostly came down to historic voter turn out.
Now, 4 years later, him being 800 years old is just the cherry on top. After a strategy that seems to have been just keeping him out of the spotlight, he and his PR team have been completely unable to effectively communicate what his administration has actually accomplished, and lets not forget about Palestine; it hasn’t even been a year since all hell broke loose on that issue and Biden’s handling of it has been wishy-washy at best, but whatever it doesn’t matter because the other guy is worse and uh-oh, we didn’t have a real primary to decide if there’s someone better out there. Too bad! Don’t care, didn’t ask.
Enough with this astroturfing shit, this is all plain to see for anyone paying attention. Biden staying in the race is actively hurting the chances of a democrat win, AND democrats down-ballot, and it’s nobody’s fault but the people that insist on him running against all possible voter indications that they won’t vote for him, just as it was with Hilary in 2016. They expected everything to fix itself and everyone to fall in line just like in 2020 because Trump is worse and now they’re shitting themselves because after their loss in 2016 and not nearly as much energy now as in 2020, they (or their donors) are starting to realize that voters might not be bluffing.
I say keep shitting on Biden, because it’s the only thing that seems to be getting democrats to slowly realize that unless they offer someone to voters that can win on their own merits against a competent opponent, they could actually lose to Trump. Again. Fucking embarrassing.
Seems to be referring to the whole section
In the context of current and emerging reproductive technologies, HHS policies should never place the desires of adults over the right of children to be raised by the biological fathers and mothers who conceive them. In cases involving biological parents who are found by a court to be unfit because of abuse or neglect, the process of adoption should be speedy, certain, and supported generously by HHS.
Page 451 (tbh more about voluntary adoption and possibly sperm donation than contraceptives but not that much of a stretch considering the mention of reproductive technologies.)
Additionally, TANF priorities are not implemented in an equally weighted way. Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways. CMS should require explicit measurement of these goals.
Page 476 (They really want to promote abstinence and fertility awareness as the end-all be-all methods of contraceptive.)
Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). TPP is operated by the Office of Population Affairs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; PREP is operated by the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Both programs should ensure that there is better reporting of subgrantees and referral lists so that they do not promote abortion or high-risk sexual behavior among adolescents. CMS should ensure that Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) proponents receive these grants and are given every opportunity to prove their effectiveness. SRA programs, both at ACF and at OASH and both discretionary and mandatory, should be equal in funding and emphasis. Qualitative research should be conducted on both types of programs to ensure continuous improvement.
In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes. Parent involvement and parent–child communication should be encouraged and be a part of any funded project. Risk avoidance should be prioritized, and any program that submits a proposal that promotes risk rather than health should not be eligible for funding.
Site visits should be revamped to ensure adherence to these optimal health metrics, and a cost analysis of programming as compared to students served should be a metric in funding (taking into account that in certain cases, intensive programs will serve fewer students and can have more positive results). These same parameters should apply to sex education programs at ACF. Any lists with “approved curriculum” or so-called evidence-based lists should be abolished; HHS should not create a monopoly of curriculum, adding to the profit of certain publishers. Furthermore, lists created in the past have given priority to sex-promotion textbooks. HHS should create a list of criteria for evaluating the sort of curriculum that should be selected for any sex education grant programs, both at OASH and at ACF, with the aim of promoting optimal health and adhering to the legislative language of each program.
Page 477 (again more about sex ed than contraceptives but how are adults supposed to know about them if they cant be legally taught at school age, for fear of “promoting sexuality” despite abstinence-based (so-called “”“risk avoidance”“”) programs not actually reducing sexuality in young people.)
Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations.
Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate.
Pages 483/484 (actually, everything 483 - 485 really, its just a lot to paste here so im pulling out the worst ones. Left out the calls for promotion of fertility awareness, because totally in isolation of the rest of this stuff and with proper warning of its limitations I have less a problem with that than with losing access to more reliable contraceptives.)
Promoting Life and Family. In dealing with sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the OASH should focus on root-cause analysis with a focus on strengthening marriage and sexual risk avoidance. Strong leadership is needed in the Office of Science and Medicine to drive investigative review of literature for a variety of issues including the effect of abortion on prematurity and breast cancer; lack of evidence for so-called gender-affirming care; and physical and emotional damage following cross-sex treatments, especially on children. The OASH should withdraw all recommendations of and support for cross-sex medical interventions and “gender-affirming care.”
Page 490 (they really talk around it here but the mention of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and again “risk-avoidance” makes this pretty loaded. Hormonal contraceptives could also be considered gender-affirming care, as it alters a person’s natural hormonal state.)
Edits for formatting
If the reason to vote for Biden is that he isn’t Trump, why shouldn’t the dems run a candidate that both isn’t Trump and is most likely going to hold onto their mental competence into next year? Either way, they’re going to get the “not Trump” vote which by your reasoning should still cover the vast majority of would-be Biden voters.
