Introduction
When Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade, President Biden’s reaction was lukewarm at best. Beyond a few public statements condemning the decision and a single executive order offering minor privacy protections around abortion resources, Biden didn’t pursue substantial actions to protect or restore women’s rights. Unlike his aggressive push to find workarounds for student-loan forgiveness after the Supreme Court’s rejection, Biden left women to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, his administration devoted extensive resources to expanding transgender rights, redefining gender in federal policy, and prioritizing inclusivity over the rights and protections of biological women.
Biden’s Unequal Response: Student Loan Forgiveness vs. Women’s Rights
After the Supreme Court struck down his student loan forgiveness plan, Biden went into overdrive. He publicly criticized the Court's decision, accusing it of being out of touch and obstructive. The administration immediately sought alternative legal avenues to bypass the ruling, dedicating significant time, effort, and taxpayer resources to revive the plan. Biden directed his team to explore options under the Higher Education Act, aiming to provide relief to borrowers despite the Court's clear stance. (Source)
This relentless pursuit stood in stark contrast to his response following the Dobbs decision. When women across the nation lost federal protection for their reproductive rights, Biden's actions were minimal. There was no substantial campaign to restore these rights, no aggressive legal maneuvering to challenge the decision, and no extensive use of executive power to support women affected by the ruling. The administration's lack of urgency suggested that women's rights were not a priority. (Source)
Furthermore, while many taxpayers struggled to afford college for their own children, Biden fought to have them foot the bill for others' student loans. His determination to make taxpayers responsible for debts they didn't incur—often for people they don't even know—highlighted a disconnect with the financial realities of many American families. This approach neglected those who had made sacrifices to pay for education without accruing significant debt.
Prioritizing Transgender Rights Over Women's Rights
At the same time, Biden's administration was actively promoting policies that expanded transgender rights, sometimes at the expense of biological women. The Department of Justice engaged in lawsuits against states that enacted laws to protect women's sports and maintain sex-specific facilities. Federal resources were allocated to challenge these state laws, portraying the administration's willingness to override local decisions intended to preserve fairness and safety for women and girls. (Source)
The reinterpretation of Title IX to include gender identity allowed biological males who identify as female to access women's sports teams, scholarships, locker rooms, and restrooms. This policy shift had immediate and tangible effects on women and girls, undermining decades of progress in women's rights. Female athletes faced increased competition from individuals with inherent biological advantages, leading to lost opportunities and accolades that would have otherwise been theirs. (Source)
Impact on Women's Privacy and Safety
The administration's policies have also raised serious concerns about privacy and safety in spaces previously reserved for women. In schools and public facilities, women and young girls now share intimate spaces with biological males, leading to discomfort and anxiety. Instances of assaults and violations of privacy have been reported, but the administration has largely dismissed these concerns in favor of promoting an inclusive agenda. (Source)
By focusing on these policies, Biden has signaled that the rights and feelings of biological women are secondary. Women who voiced their unease were often labeled as intolerant, and their legitimate concerns were marginalized. This has created a climate where women feel unsupported by their own government.
Allocating Resources Away from Women's Rights
The stark difference in resource allocation is evident. The administration poured significant effort into student loan forgiveness, despite the Supreme Court's ruling, and into advancing transgender rights. Legal teams, financial resources, and extensive public messaging were mobilized to support these causes. In contrast, women's rights—especially following the Dobbs decision—received a fraction of this attention.
Taxpayer dollars were funneled into initiatives that many felt did not serve the broader public interest, especially when compared to the pressing need to address the erosion of women's rights. This misallocation has been a point of contention among voters who believe that the government's priorities are misaligned with the needs of its citizens.
Trump’s Stance: Restoring Women's Rights and Fairness
Donald Trump has recognized the dissatisfaction with Biden's policies and has pledged to restore women's rights. He has committed to enforcing protections that prevent biological males from competing in women's sports, ensuring that female athletes have a fair playing field. Trump has also vowed to reinstate policies that maintain the privacy and safety of women in locker rooms, bathrooms, and other single-sex spaces. (Source)
By focusing on these issues, Trump appeals to voters who feel that their concerns have been ignored. His platform emphasizes the importance of acknowledging biological realities and safeguarding the rights that women have fought hard to secure.
Biden’s Mess
President Biden's administration has demonstrated a clear disparity in how it addresses different issues. The aggressive pursuit of student loan forgiveness—despite Supreme Court opposition—and the extensive efforts to expand transgender rights highlight a willingness to invest time and resources when it aligns with specific agendas. Meanwhile, the lackluster response to the Dobbs decision and the minimal actions taken to protect women's rights suggest that these issues are not a priority.
This imbalance has not gone unnoticed by the public. Many taxpayers are frustrated by the prospect of paying off others' student debts while struggling with their own financial burdens. Women and parents are concerned about the erosion of privacy, safety, and fairness in sports and public facilities.
In contrast, Trump's commitment to restoring women's rights and addressing these concerns directly has resonated with voters. His promises to reinstate protections and prioritize the needs of women and girls present a clear alternative to Biden's approach. For those who value these rights, Trump's platform offers a path toward reestablishing the protections that have been compromised.
Additional Emphasis on Resource Allocation and Public Criticism
Public Criticism of the Supreme Court: Biden's open criticism of the Supreme Court after the student loan ruling was intense and sustained. He accused the Court of being politically motivated and not acting in the nation's best interest. This public denouncement was coupled with immediate action to find alternative solutions, showcasing his dedication to this issue. (Source)
Lack of Equivalent Action Post-Dobbs: There was no equivalent outcry or strategic effort to counteract the Dobbs decision. Biden did not employ the same level of executive action or public pressure to defend women's reproductive rights. The absence of a robust plan to address the impact of Dobbs stands in stark contrast to his response to the student loan setback.
Taxpayer Concerns: Many Americans are burdened with their own financial responsibilities, including saving for their children's education. Biden's push to have taxpayers fund student loan forgiveness for others—while neglecting policies that could assist them directly—has been a source of frustration. This policy was perceived as favoring a select group at the expense of the broader population.
The author has worked at Equinox for 15 years and LIFETIME for 7 years and is a proponent of women’s rights both in and out of the gym environment.