Staff Reports
CNN host Jake Tapper questioned President Joe Biden’s changing stance on abortion during a recent interview with Biden campaign co-chair Mitch Landrieu. Tapper raised concerns about Biden’s fluctuating position on the sensitive issue and its potential impact on his campaign, specifically asking if his wavering stance undermines support from pro-choice advocates.
Watch: CNN Host Calls Out Joe Biden for 'Being All Over the Map" on Abortion https://t.co/16pXofh1zJ
— ?? Raven ?⬛? (@DrkRaven62) May 8, 2024
In the interview, Landrieu first criticized how former President Trump had handled the abortion issue, but then highlighted Biden’s unwavering support for women’s reproductive rights since his presidency. Despite this assertion, Tapper emphasized Biden’s inconsistent track record on abortion throughout his career.
Tapper pointed out that in 1974, Senator Biden expressed reservations about the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion. Then in 2006, Biden referred to himself as “the odd man out” in the Democratic Party when it came to abortion, indicating that he viewed abortion as a tragedy that should be rare and safe.
However, in recent years, Biden has taken a different stance on abortion. He signed an executive order in 2022 aimed at protecting access to abortion services and denounced Republican-led states for imposing restrictions on abortion, arguing that such measures deprived women of basic healthcare.
During his State of the Union address in 2023, Biden pledged to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land if given a Congress that supports the right to choose. Tapper highlighted the apparent alignment of Biden’s position on abortion with his base and suggested that the President’s views may be shaped by electoral considerations rather than personal conviction.
Tapper’s scrutiny of Biden’s stance on abortion reflects concerns about the President’s consistency and integrity on a highly divisive issue. The article emphasizes the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation on abortion and the potential implications of this approach.
The rewriter also draws attention to the clash between the left’s perspective, advocating for a living constitution that adapts to societal changes, and the right’s originalist view that upholds the Constitution’s original intent. The article concludes by underscoring the significance of protecting the right to life, particularly in relation to abortion, and calls for unity in safeguarding the fundamental rights of innocent children.
