Reminder: A large fraction of Democratic voters oppose Medicaid paying for abortions.

[highplainsdem]

Because of that, President Obama had to sign a Hyde-Amendment-friendly EO in 2010 to get enough DEMOCRATIC votes in the House to pass the ACA.


And in 2016, while 57% of Clinton voters favored Medicaid paying for abortions, 36% of Clinton voters opposed that.



In case you've forgotten the executive order Obama signed, see this article from Reuters, March 24, 2010:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-obama/obama-signs-order-on-abortion-and-healthcare-idUSTRE62N61Y20100324

President Barack Obama signed an executive order on abortion on Wednesday that had won crucial votes for his healthcare bill, but disappointed women’s groups that have been among his most enthusiastic supporters.

The order is intended to ensure the new healthcare law will maintain a ban on the use of federal money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of a woman is in danger.

The White House announced on Sunday that Obama would sign the order in exchange for support for the massive healthcare overhaul bill from Democratic abortion rights opponents’ in the House of Representatives.

The support from the roughly dozen members of that group, led by Representative Bart Stupak, was essential to get the 216 votes necessary for the House to pass the bill.

Abortion rights advocates said they were furious about the signing, which they said gave extra weight to an anti-abortion measure known as the Hyde Amendment, but acknowledged they were unlikely to campaign against healthcare reform or most candidates who supported the bill.

-snip-

Wikipedia article on the executive order and how it was condemned by both pro-life and pro-choice groups:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13535



It's easy, as liberals, to underestimate just how many Americans oppose abortion, at least under some circumstances.

Here's a Gallup in-depth article with info on attitudes toward abortion and how those attitudes have changed over the years. This includes reasons for abortion and stage of pregnancy:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx


I don't know of any studies in the last year or two showing support for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

But the subject of federal funding of abortions WAS included in a Politico/Harvard poll in October 2016.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2016/10/POLITICO-Harvard-Poll-Oct-2016-Voters-Health-Care.pdf

That poll found that a majority of voters opposed federal funding of abortions (58% opposed, only 36% favored), and while a majority of Clinton voters (57%) favored Medicaid paying for abortions, a significant fraction of Clinton voters were opposed to Medicaid paying for abortions (36%).

You've probably heard that polls show support for Planned Parenthood, and that was the case with this 2016 poll, too, where voters favored federal funding for Planned Parenthood (58-37 for all voters, 70-26 for Clinton voters).

But it's important to note that a significant fraction of Democratic voters who favored federal funds for Planned Parenthood in late 2016 still opposed federal funds via Medicaid for abortions.


Personally, I'd like to see the Hyde Amendment repealed.

Realistically, I have to recognize that a majority of the electorate would oppose that, and that majority of the electorate includes more than a third of Clinton voters as of 2016.

Realistically, I also know that there's absolutely no chance of repealing the Hyde Amendment without Democratic control of the White House and the Senate as well as the House. And even then we're not likely to see its repeal unless there's more popular support for that repeal.

FWIW, I believe Biden, if elected president, would go along with repeal of the Hyde Amendment if the House and Senate voted for repeal.

I still think he has far and away the best chance of beating Trump of any of the Democratic candidates, and it would be political suicide for the party to consider him disqualified as a possible nominee when his current or past views on the Hyde Amendment are shared by so many Democrats.

[BannonsLiver]

1. That doesn't seem to matter much

Plenty of people around here who would trade the ACA for repeal of the Hyde Amendment today if they could, misguided as that would be.

[Thekaspervote]

6. Yes, biting off one's nose to spite the face

[still_one]

2. That is all true, but it isn't a good defense to support it now, especially with all the efforts

to overturn Roe going on at this time

I think Joe should call a press conference and step back on this. I don’t think it will fade on its own, and his Democratic opponents will sure see it doesn’t

In fact Planned Parenthood and Naral gave him a way out by encouraging him to reconsider

This is an unnecessary and self-inflicted fight he doesn’t need, and it isn’t too late for him to defuse it

All he needs to say is that he agrees the Hyde Amendment should be repealed, and for Congress to do it, and he would sign it as President

[highplainsdem]

4. This is a separate issue from Roe V Wade.

I think the Democratic Party already has enough of a fight on its hands, trying to preserve as much access to abortion as has been available for the last 40 years since the Hyde Amendment passed, without having to add Hyde Amendment repeal to the mix.

[still_one]

7. We can debate whether it is a separate issue or not, and the intent of Henry Hyde when he crafted it

but instead as you just stated I believe, the Democratic Party doesn’t need this fight about the Hyde Amendment, which is why I am suggesting that Joe can defuse it quickly by saying if Congress repeals the Hyde Amendment he would sign it as President

Case closed

[highplainsdem]

8. Yes, I agree. He should be willing to say that if Congress repeals it, he'l sign that bill.

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. Doesn't matter; the folks who think Trump will be easy to beat are determined to throw it away

[highplainsdem]

5. Sigh. It looks that way. Though I suspect this is being seized on mostly as a way to cut down the

frontrunner.

[peggysue2]

15. Trump will not be easy to beat

Sitting in the WH, he has the clear advantage of an incumbent. And he has the GOP that is quite willing to bend rules and skirt election no-noes. To those of us here, it's clear that Trump is unfit for office. But Republicans have demonstrated their willingness to do anything and everything to win elections and hold onto power. Voter suppression? No biggie. Gross propaganda and lies? They're skilled at it. Straight out cheating? Oh, yessiree.

Which means we need to not only win but win with indisputable numbers, a complete repudiation of everything Trump, with margins even Republicans cannot manipulate.

It's a huge challenge but it's something we must do. The candidate who can run circles around Trump should be our clear choice. At the moment, that's Joe Biden. Because losing is not an option.

[LibFarmer]

9. All this manufactured outrage over the Hyde amendment

is propagated by other candidates -- particularly one camp which is frustrated about not getting any traction with their photo-ops, slogans and platitudes.

[BannonsLiver]

10. The cable networks aren't really touching it

I had both CNN and MSNBC on all day yesterday and wasn’t mentioned one time. Same for today. If these MSM fucks thought they had something to promote their Dems in turmoil melodrama they would have been on this like stink on shit.

[highplainsdem]

11. Yeah, David Sirota seems really happy about this.

[Skya Rhen]

12. A voice of reason - so refreshing - thanks!

[ancianita]

13. Solid and admirable reasoning. Thank you for the realism that can help Dems win.

[MrsCoffee]

14. Reminder. Women are the Democratic base.

Women ushered in the blue wave.

Women are the future of the party.

Continually bargaining our rights is a losing proposition.

[Vidal]

16. Thank you for telling the truth about this issue.

nt