224

Biden signs executive order on advancing study of women's health while chiding 'backward' GOP ideas (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Monday aimed at advancing the study of women’s health by strengthening data collection and providing better funding opportunities for biomedical research while chiding Republicans for having “no clue about the power of women” but saying they’re “about to find out” come November’s election.

Women’s health has long been underfunded and understudied. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the federal government mandated women be included in federally funded medical research; for most of medical history, though, scientific study was based almost entirely on men.

“We still know too little about how to effectively prevent, diagnose and treat a wide array of health conditions in women,” said Dr. Carolyn Mazure, the head of the White House initiative on women’s health.

Today, research often fails to properly track differences between women and men, and does not represent women equally particularly for illnesses more common to them — which Biden suggested his order would help change.

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago

I knew women's health was not great, but medicine isn't like on TV and a lot of it is still a crapshoot, but once I was engrossed in the world of maternity I found that women's health is abysmal.

[-] Ekybio@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

All GOP ideas are backwards. Ever. Always have been.

If it pisses them off that Biden is helping women, keep doing it. They have been able to get away with being sexist for way to long.

[+] verdantbanana@lemmy.world -50 points 5 months ago

how the fuck does this guy still have support

could he not have taken the same effort to legalize abortion?

quarter assing everything at best as always

[-] Kadaj21@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And at the opposite side of the spectrum we haaave……ah yes, arresting women for miscarrying [Oklahoma], enacting laws to force women [and children] to flee their home states [e.g. Ohio and Texas] to get medical care they need, while also attempting to criminalize them for crossing state lines to get said medical care [Texas, Idaho, Missouri IIRC], which would be unconstitutional, but would likely take time to fight in the courts.

If he had the Senate AND House on his side and wasn’t able to get it done, I can see the criticism, but you know right now if it passed the Senate its going no where with MJ as House leader at the very least. Unless there is some magical executive power that the Supreme Court won’t shut down a la Roe vs Wade.

[+] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works -13 points 5 months ago

Roe v Wade

Actually the supreme Court has 0 enforcement mechanism. And it would have no recourse should Biden do anything within his power to undermine that ruling by say.... Invoking a national health emergency.

But he didn't, and he won't. No amount of copious cope filled paragraphs nitty-grittyin about why he won't will change that. Hope and paragraphs of promises ain't shit when reality sets in and the best thing anyone can bring up when he's criticized is copious cope and:

"at least he's not a treasonous felon."

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

No need for nitty gritty, ignoring laws and courts is what dictators do. The hhs secretary is the one to determine a national health emergency and by law can only do so for a disease or disorder. Pregnancy is neither.

Acting like he hasn't done anything besides not be Trump is disingenuous at best especially considering the congresses he's had to work with.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

You mean the secretary of human health services who reports directly to the president? We are talking about the same thing here, biden.

Actually he has the power within his existing presidential power. he just decided not to. Why, i don't know. But it isn't some dictator move. He did it and has done it for disaster relief. He has considered doing it for abortion, but decided not to.

He also ended Medicaid coverage by ending the covid national emergency, something he didn't have to sign, but did.

Sure Biden hasn't done nothing, but has done less than he could in my estimation. Saying otherwise? Well i call that cope. You can call it what you want.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-weighing-public-health-emergency-abortion-experts-skeptical/story?id=86811633

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

thank you for expanding on this

Democrats could have had a landslide victory with no contest if they would just play the cards on the table and be on the peoples' side for once

not doing so seems fishy why would you not look out for the citizens and instantly lock in votes? who else could the politicians be looking out for?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

No need for nitty gritty, ignoring laws and courts is what dictators do.

The supreme court has demonstrated its illegitimacy.

Acting like he hasn’t done anything besides not be Trump is disingenuous at best especially considering the congresses he’s had to work with

The congress he had to work with at the start of his term had a Democratic majority, which considered preserving the filibuster to be more important than protecting Roe.

[-] forrgott@lemm.ee 24 points 5 months ago

could he not have taken the same effort to legalize abortion?

No, he literally could not have legalized abortion with an executive order.

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024

224 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18586 readers

4382 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News