Renters Must Pay Their Bills After SCOTUS Ends Squatter Protections

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s moratorium on residential evictions on Thursday, ruling the ban could only be extended by an act of Congress. The final ruling was 6-3, with all three Democrat-appointed justices dissenting.

“It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken,” the ruling read. “But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

The court later went on to conclude that “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.”

Writing for the minority, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Centers for Disease Control’s moratorium extension was “justified by the Delta-variant surge,” and that “the modified order targets only those regions currently experiencing skyrocketing rates.”

The justice attempted to rationalize that “the public interest is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the CDC’s judgment,” and that “the public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC’s judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates.”

The Thursday ruling echoes similar sentiments from the high court back in June, in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the CDC had “exceeded its existing statutory authority” by issuing the federal moratorium in the first place. Despite its unconstitutionality, the 5-4 majority allowed the ban to continue until its July 31 expiration date. Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

Prior to issuing their new moratorium at the behest of far-left Democrats, however, the Biden administration originally acknowledged they had no constitutional authority to continue the federal moratorium after July 31.

“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.”

Additionally, White House American Rescue Plan coordinator Gene Sperling told reporters during an August 2 press briefing that the president had “double, triple, quadruple-checked” every legal option to keep the moratorium in place, but acknowledged the administration had been “unable to find the legal authority for even new, targeted eviction moratoriums.”

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source link

UConn Students Fighting for Broader Free Speech Protections Face Backlash on Campus –

“The University of Connecticut is permitted to, and will, limit expression in order to protect public safety and the rights of others,” states the university’s official policy regarding campus speech, adopted in 2017. “This includes expression that is defamatory, threatening, or invades individual privacy. Protected speech may also be reasonably regulated as to the time, place, and manner of the expression.”

To Isadore Johnson, a rising senior at the University of Connecticut (UConn), this didn’t sound like a very free speech–friendly policy at all.

Johnson—a founder of UConn’s Students for Liberty (SFL) chapter—delights in debating and befriending people he disagrees with across the political spectrum. So he was dismayed by the university’s statement and worried it would be misinterpreted by students to shut down speech with which they disagree.

“I think many universities, including UConn, take it for granted that students appreciate the protections and values of open discourse and discussion,” Johnson tells Reason. “Many students do not, and it is incumbent on the university to clarify and explain such values so students know what rights are protected. The right to argue vigorously and sometimes offensively is part of our civic culture, and students ought not be protected against that.”

Johnson was determined to improve free speech rights on his campus, no matter the social cost. That commitment was put to the test after a statement he proposed to the student government to protect freedom of speech on campus created a storm of outrage from his peers.

The proposed statement on the freedom of speech and expression—submitted to the undergraduate student government last spring by Johnson, other members of the SFL chapter, and student body President Michael Hernández—was based on the well-regarded Chicago Statement. It includes quotes from free speech advocates across history, such as academic Michael Poliakoff and philosopher John Stuart Mill.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the students’ “UConn Statement” employs “gold-standard free speech policy language” but nothing “groundbreaking.” Nonetheless, Johnson and his friends received significant and sometimes vitriolic pushback from their peers on campus. 

In a number of public Instagram stories, opponents of the statement called Johnson, Hernández, and their friends racist, bigoted, and white supremacists because they did not care about “accountability.”

“The backlash on campus surprised me,” says Johnson. “I was of the opinion that many students on the surface enjoyed free speech, but didn’t know much about it. I was somewhat uncomfortable getting threats, as I’m sure anyone would be. In particular, I found it especially surprising and troubling how the human rights organizations on campus remained indifferent if not hostile to our goal.”

One Instagram message sent to him asked, “Can I call you a greasy haired cracker or is that not free speech?” Another contained a screenshot of a Google Images search for “cracker thats doing too much,” followed by a video of an ISIS beheading.

More moderate opposition, as expressed by contributor Nell Srinath in an article in UConn’s student newspaper, suggested the statement was unnecessary and a net negative. While stating that “freedom to safely express one’s own thoughts and ideas is a central pillar to the culture that we as a student body would like to build,” Srinath also warned that “frolicking around this idealist realm, however, will soon bring to light a sobering conclusion: The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of racial capitalism and patriarchy (see: white cis men), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for racism, transmisogyny, ableism and other social ills with impunity.”

“Naturally,” Srinath argues, “the consequence of [adopting the new speech proposal] would be forcing students to tolerate bigoted speech in their student government, in their learning environment and in campus life.”

This spring, Hernández and his supporters officially pulled their legislation from consideration after they said that the undergraduate student government violated its own procedures to keep the issue from even being raised for a vote. One committee, Johnson says, went as far as to pack a committee meeting with opponents to keep the statement from being proposed. 

So Johnson turned the statement into a petition, posted it to Facebook, and received 139 signatures from UConn students and faculty within the first 10 days.

Hernández’s support of the statement led to the student government approving a vote of no confidence against him as president. This made Hernández one of four presidents of the student government last year. Typically presidents serve for one entire year.

“I am not perfect but I care about our rights,” Hernández told The College Fix on the issue. “One of my family members ran for mayor of a city in Honduras and was killed during the campaign trail for opposing the political orthodoxy. In much of the world speech is not free. On the contrary, some people have to pay for it with their lives.”

The chaos caused the UConn administration to step in, sanctioning the student government and appointing an administrative monitor of the organization.

Going into the fall of his senior year, Johnson is still hopeful about the cause of freedom of speech at UConn, and is planning to use SFL to bring a number of speakers to campus to talk to students on the issue. He is also still promoting the UConn Statement via an Instagram page.

“I’m not sure exactly how this problem will be resolved, but I’m optimistic that it will be,” Johnson says.

He hopes that by making people outside of campus aware of what is going on, donors and taxpayers who contribute to the school—not to mention Connecticut lawmakers—will listen and help make action happen.

“I think raising awareness about the problem is the first step to solving it,” he says.

He tells Reason, “I understand that many libertarians are uncomfortable with the way that institutions like academia are functioning. Getting involved, even as an individual, can and does make a difference.” 

Source link

Joni Ernst pushes transparency, taxpayer protections in $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal

Sen. Joni Ernst is pushing last-minute changes to President Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure package to increase transparency and ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Ms. Ernst, Iowa Republican, has offered a series of amendments to the infrastructure bill amid revelations that it is not fully paid for as the White House promised.

“The American people want new roads and bridges, not more bottomless boondoggles,” said Ms. Ernst. “Taxpayers are fed up with the federal government doling money out to rail and transit projects that go nowhere.”

To that end, Ms. Ernst is pushing an amendment to fully disclose the cost of the $1.2 trillion package to voters. She argues such transparency is needed because the 2,702-page bill was crafted behind closed doors for months and only made available to the public last week.

Despite the timing, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer is rushing to hold a final vote on the deal sometime this weekend. Most Republicans say they have not had enough time to review the bill, let alone endorse it.

“When you rush a 2,700 page bill through the Senate, things slip through the cracks,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, who is opposing the legislation.

Since Republicans are unlikely to have the votes to kill the legislation, Ms. Ernst at least wants the public made aware of its true cost.

“I have an amendment that would expose the costs of projects … so taxpayers know how their money is being spent,” she said. “The only reason to oppose this amendment is if you have something to hide.”

Similarly, Ms. Ernst is pushing requirements that infrastructure funding does not go to public transit projects estimated to cost more than a billion dollars, or that are likely to lose money in the long run.  

The amendment specifically targets rail projects in California, including a proposed subway line stretching from near House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district to Silicon Valley. That project is estimated to cost more than $1 billion per mile, significantly above initial estimates.

“The current infrastructure proposal could throw millions more at this project and others like it with no transparency or accountability for taxpayers, and that’s simply unacceptable,” said Ms. Ernst.

In a further effort to save taxpayer dollars, Ms. Ernst is proposing to repurpose money set aside for the public financing of elections. Ms. Ernst, in particular, wants to repurpose the $380 million appropriated for presidential election campaigns to fund infrastructure.

The move would help shore up the multitrillion-dollar package, which was found to be improperly funded earlier this week by the CBO. The nonpartisan agency estimates that more than half of the $550 billion the package proposes in new spending is unaccounted for.

The analysis shattered a major selling point that the infrastructure package’s authors had been making for weeks: mainly that it was fully funded without raising taxes.

“While we’ve heard for weeks that it would be paid for, it’s not,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty, Tennessee Republican. “It didn’t just come up short, it came up a quarter of a trillion dollars short.”

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Source link

Republicans draft legislation to strip Big Tech companies of protections under Section 230

Republican Reps. Jim Jordan and Cathy McMorris Rodgers announced on Wednesday that they have drafted legislation to strip Big Tech companies from protections provided under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“The ‘discussion draft’ legislation, penned by McMorris Rodgers, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, exclusively obtained by Fox News, would prevent Big Tech companies from using Section 230 liability protections to ‘silence conservatives,’” according to Fox Business.

“The bill would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act to provide that immunity does not apply to ‘certain companies’ and would require internet platform companies to ‘implement and maintain reasonable and user-friendly appeals processes for decisions about content on the platforms,’” the outlet continued.

Section 230 stipulates that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Speaking to Fox News, McMorris Rodgers said that “Big Tech can no longer be allowed to hide behind Section 230.” She said their drafted bill, which has yet to receive a formal introduction date, is a “solution to remove Big Tech altogether from Section 230 and put them under new obligations that will hold them more accountable for censoring Americans.”

“It’s time to expose Big Tech’s bias and make sure they treat constitutionally protected speech fairly,” she added.

Jordan went on to say that Big Tech is “out to get conservatives,” adding that the legislation he helped draft “builds upon previous work by our conference to undo the legal immunity that Big Tech hides behind to evade accountability.”

“We want to hear from our colleagues about how we can move forward together to finally stop the censoring of conservative voices on the internet,” Jordan added.

Former President Donald Trump, who was banned from Twitter, Facebook and other Tech Giant social media, stressed a need for a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the companies from being treated as publishers. 

Section 230 states:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

The term “otherwise objectionable,” leaves companies the freedom to censor material they find “otherwise objectionable.” If these words were to be removed from the Code, the sites could theoretically be open to legal liability for the removal of content for political reasons.

Source link

Nonprofit Sounds Alarm, Says Biden Nom Threatens Trump-Era Due Process Protections

American college students could be sitting ducks for sham rape accusations if President Joe Biden’s nominee to be assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education gets confirmed.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit advocacy group, sounded the alarm, saying college students can kiss their due-process rights goodbye if Catherine Lhamon is approved.

In a statement Wednesday, Robert Shibley, the executive director of FIRE, said, “Lhamon’s history and rhetoric indicate that she will put her thumb on the scale of justice — ripping away fundamental rights and encouraging a patently unfair shadow justice system that deprives students of their right to due process.”

Lhamon was appointed by then-President Barack Obama to serve as the chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in December 2016.

In January, Biden appointed her to the race-hustling post of “Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice and Equity.”


Reporter Caught Smearing Herself with Mud to Make It Look Like She Helped with Disaster Cleanup

In May, Lhamon was nominated as assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education.

Shibley said students’ rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act were “moving in the right direction” under the Trump administration, “but Catherine Lhamon’s nomination just shows how threatened the progress we’ve made is.”

In 2020, then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos enacted new Title IX regulations to ensure that a student accused of sexual harassment or assault would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In the past, students accused of sexual misconduct were often presumed guilty and suspended from school even before an investigation was conducted.

Should Lhamon be confirmed?

Biden has indicated he plans to roll back the Trump administration Title IX rules.

The alarming lack of due process procedures to protect students wrongly accused of sexual assault has resulted in egregious civil rights violations.

The rape hoaxes at Duke University in 2006 and at the University of Virginia in 2014 show the need for such protections.

In both instances, male college students who were falsely accused of rape were defamed and publicly vilified and had their lives destroyed because school administrators and the left-wing media presumed they were guilty before the facts were uncovered.

The 2014 rape hoax at the University of Virginia started because a female student lied to Rolling Stone magazine, claiming she had been gang-raped by several brothers at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.


Nebraska Sex Education Standards Include ‘Grooming 101,’ Horrifying Framing of Abortion

It later turned out that the accuser had made up the story to get the attention of a male student she had a crush on.

In 2015, Rolling Stone issued a full retraction and was also ordered to pay $1.65 million to the maligned fraternity to settle a defamation lawsuit.

The 2o06 Duke University rape hoax was even more outrageous because the race-baiting media hyped a nonexistent racial angle because the accuser was black.

In that scandal, a black student at North Carolina Central University who worked part-time as a stripper falsely accused three white members of Duke’s lacrosse team of raping her at a party.

An investigation later revealed that the allegations were fabricated.

In 2007, the North Carolina district attorney who led the sham prosecution was disbarred and forced to resign, and the lacrosse players — who had sought $30 million in defamation damages from Duke — settled their dispute for an undisclosed amount.

The Trump administration’s guidelines were designed to prevent such miscarriages of justice by protecting due process and ensuring that the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

According to a recent FIRE report, many colleges across the nation “are refusing to implement a single, fair disciplinary process for all students, instead going to absurd lengths to restrict their rights.”

“Nearly two-thirds (62.2%) of America’s top 53 universities do not explicitly guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty,” according to the organization.

The lack of a uniform standard for adjudicating sexual misconduct claims on college campuses opens up a dangerous slippery slope where rape accusations could be weaponized to frivolously ruin an innocent student’s life.

Ryan Ansloan, the lead author of the FIRE report, said, “This report is proof that institutions will go to absurd lengths to abridge their students’ rights.

“No student should have to face a confusing, unwieldy campus judicial system with the deck already stacked against a fair process.”

Everyone deserves due process, especially during these politically divisive times, where race-grifters like Jussie Smollett try to stoke race wars by making false accusations.

In the United States, the presumption of innocence is proffered even to illegal aliens accused of heinous crimes, including rape and murder.

Why would a Biden official not want to extend this basic courtesy to American college students, especially since most universities are heavily subsidized by their parents’ tax dollars?


Betsy DeVos, Biden administration, colleges and universities, Department of Education DOE, due process, Joe Biden, politics, rape, sexual assault, student, Trump administration, US news

Source link

New law looks to shore up protections for Pennsylvania banking industry

Legislation authored by Rep. Sheryl Delozier, R-Cumberland, aiming to strengthen the dual banking system in Pennsylvania was signed into law by the governor recently.

Act 39 of 2021 amends the Department of Banking and Securities Code to change the banking fund to a trust fund for the benefit of banking institutions and credit unions.

The change includes examination and regulation of institutions, and a reserve to be maintained to cover any emergencies such as loss of revenue or adverse economic conditions.

The legislation will also change the Institution Resolution Account into a trust fund for the benefit of banks, trust companies, credit unions, savings banks, and their customers.

The bill is the product of lengthy negotiation between banking groups and the Department of Banking and Securities.

“This clarifies that the secretary of Banking builds up a reserve in the institution resolution account to pay the costs and protect the consumers if a bank or credit union would fail and not impair the ability of the department to perform its duties,” Delozier said.

Source link

Twitter loses legal protections in India, gov’t says | News

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

NEW DELHI, India, July 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Twitter has lost key liability protections in India amid escalating legal troubles for the Big Tech platform around the world.  

In a court filing on Monday, India’s IT ministry said Twitter’s refusal to comply with  

IT guidelines that took effect in May means that the company is now legally liable for user content. Twitter has more than 18 million users in India, one of its top emerging markets.   

The new guidelines include requirements that large social media firms quickly remove flagged content and hire officers to communicate with law enforcement and address user grievances. Twitter has not appointed officers in accordance with the IT rules, among other violations, the government’s court filing with the High Court of Dehli said.  

— Article continues below Petition —

0 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 1!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

“I state that the immunity conferred on intermediaries under section 79(1) is a conditional immunity subject to the intermediary satisfying the conditions under sections 79(2) and 79(3). As provided in Rule 7, failure to observe the IT Rules 2021 results in provisions of Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2000 not being applicable to such an intermediary,” wrote N. Samaya Balan with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. 

Police in India have already initiated five cases against Twitter or the platform’s Indian officials, according to TechCrunch. Last month, Indian police summoned the head of Twitter India over claims that the company did not do enough to stop a viral video that allegedly misled viewers and inflamed tensions between Hindus and Muslims. 

Twitter, which has purged numerous conservative figures and outlets such as LifeSiteNews in recent months, has said that India’s crackdown on social media poses a “potential threat to freedom of expression.” President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, including Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of  Missouri, have tried to strip liability protections of Big Tech firms in the United States in response to selective censorship of American users.  

In addition to its Indian troubles, Twitter is facing new legal pressure in France, Reuters reported Tuesday, with a French court ordering the company to explain how it will restrict “hate speech.” Twitter will have two months to detail plans for suppressing “hateful” content after a lawsuit by left-wing groups. 

And in the U.K., a bill proposed earlier this year would introduce substantial fines for Big Tech platforms that do not remove material deemed “racist abuse,” as well as child sexual abuse content or threats against individuals. The legislation would prohibit discrimination against political viewpoints, the British government has said.  

Twitter also remains locked out of Nigeria after being banned from the country in June for censoring a tweet by the Nigerian president. Lawsuits filed against the ban are pending. 

Source link

My Washington Times Article Making the Case for Increasing Compensation and Procedural Protections for Property Owners Who Lose their Land to Eminent Domain

The Washington Times recently published my article on increasing compensation and procedural protections for victims of eminent domain. Here is an excerpt:

In last month’s column on eminent domain, I made the case for constraining eminent domain abuse by restoring constitutional limits on the range of purposes for which the government is allowed to take private property. Although the Fifth Amendment allows condemnations that are only for a “public use,” too often courts let government officials seize property for the benefit of powerful private interests.

But takings that violate public use constraints and victimize the poor and politically weak are far from the only problem with current eminent domain policy. Other abuses include the grossly inadequate compensation received by many owners who have their land seized and weak procedural constraints on eminent domain….

The Fifth Amendment specifically mandates that owners receive “just compensation,” which the Supreme Court has long interpreted as the “fair market value” of the property. In reality, however, studies show that most owners get less than that, especially less affluent owners….

Even full fair market value is often not enough to fully compensate owners for their losses. Many people value their property above what they could get for it on the market. Consider, for example, homeowners and small businesses who have been in the same location for years, and have longstanding relationships with friends, neighbors and customers in the area. Nonprofit institutions such as churches and other houses of worship also often have great value that goes beyond the market price of the land they sit on. Such “subjective value” is often left uncompensated when property gets condemned, even if the owners get the full market value of the land….

There is also a need for stronger procedural protections for property owners. Some state and local governments use “quick take” condemnations, under which they can seize property even before paying compensation and litigating legal challenges. The federal government resorts to similarly egregious procedures for many pipeline and border barrier takings. Legislative reforms should ensure that the government can take property only after courts have properly adjudicated any legal challenges and full compensation is paid. Government agencies should not be allowed to take first and ask questions about legality and compensation later.

As noted, this is my second piece in a two part series. The first part is available here. Both are part of the Times’ “To the Republic” series, which features articles on a variety of constitutional issues, by various mostly conservative (and a few libertarian) commentators. It includes contributions by Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick (on the power of judicial review), and the Volokh Conspiracy’s own Keith Whittington (on impeachment).

I have written about a variety of issues related to eminent domain in greater detail in my book The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.

Source link

EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Demand Biden Include Historic Bipartisan Pro-Life Protections In Budget Request

Over 170 Republican members of Congress called on President Joe Biden Thursday to include pro-life protections in his budget request, warning that the current budget is “an affront to the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars funding abortion on demand resulting in the death of children in the womb.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation first obtained the letter warning the president that his fiscal year 2022 budget request will remove bipartisan pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for abortions and has been included in appropriations legislation every year since 1976.

Republicans emphasized that Americans who oppose abortion should not be forced to see their taxpayer dollars fund a “brutal procedure that ends the lives of unborn children.” (RELATED: Democrat Draft Budget Dramatically Expands Taxpayer Funding Of Abortion, Pro-Life Group Warns)

“We know you understand this. You get it—or at least you once did,” the lawmakers told Biden, reminding the president that he formerly opposed abortion.

“Years ago, you wrote a constituent explaining that a law against funding for abortion would ‘protect both the woman and her unborn child,’” the lawmakers wrote. “You wrote: ‘I have consistently—on no fewer than 50 occasions—voted against federal funding of abortions…those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.’” (RELATED: Here’s How Joe Biden Has Evolved On Abortion)

The letter is led by Republican Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, as well as House Congressional Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chairs Chris Smith of New Jersey, Andy Harris of Maryland, Michelle Fischbach of Minnesota, and Kat Cammack of Florida.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 21: Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) speaks to the media with members of the Republican Study Committee about Iran on April 21, 2021 in Washington, DC. The group has proposed legislation that would expand sanctions on Iran and aim to prevent the U.S. reentering the Iran deal. (Photo by Joshua Roberts/Getty Images)

Biden’s proposed budget would not only also increase funding for abortion providers both internationally and in the U.S., the lawmakers said, it also provides additional funds to the United Nations Population Fund, though the UNFPA complies with China’s forced family planning policies.

The Republicans noted that the budget would also repeal the Dornan Amendment preventing Washington, D.C., tax dollars from being used for abortions. (RELATED: Pro-Life Leaders Condemn ‘Devout Catholic’ Biden Over His Vow To ‘Codify’ Roe V. Wade)

The Hyde Amendment first passed in 1976 and bans the use of federal funds for abortions. Biden has repeatedly promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and his assurances are backed by Democratic leadership and pro-abortion advocates pushing to axe the amendment from acts of Congress.

Biden, who formerly said he was opposed to abortion as a Catholic, supported the Hyde Amendment up until June 2019. At the time, presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and then-Sen. Kamala Harris, had pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment should they become president in 2020.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Source link