Blowback facing Biden over Hyde shows no middle ground remains on abortion in presidential politics

[DonViejo]

By James Hohmann June 6 at 11:11 AM

With Joanie Greve and Mariana Alfaro

THE BIG IDEA: Joe Biden boasted the last time he ran for president about his “middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years.”

“I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice,” he wrote in his 2007 book, “Promises to Keep.”

The political firestorm enveloping Biden this morning underscores how much has changed in the past dozen years. In a crowded field of 23, the former vice president is the only Democratic presidential candidate who endorses keeping the Hyde Amendment. Biden’s campaign triggered a day of relentless attacks after reaffirming to NBC News his support for the ban on using federal funds for abortion services, except in rare cases, which dates to 1976.

Though Biden leads in national polls of Democratic primary voters, the backlash shows how little room there is in 2020 to be a presidential candidate with a nuanced view of abortion in either party. Even if most regular voters hold views that are somewhat middle-of-the-road. A plank was added to the Democratic Party’s platform in 2016 calling for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

-- Biden’s 2020 rivals condemned him more forcefully and directly on this than they have any other issue, reflecting the degree to which Hyde has become a litmus test. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during an MSNBC town hall last night that his position punishes disadvantaged women the most. Before Hyde became the law of the land, for example, Medicaid paid for an estimated 300,000 abortions a year. “Understand this: Women of means will still have access to abortions. Poor women won’t,” she said. “It will be women who can't afford to take off three days from work. It will be very young women. It will be women who have been raped. It will be women who have been molested by someone in their own family. We do not pass laws that take away that freedom from the women who are most vulnerable.”

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/06/06/daily-202-blowback-facing-biden-over-hyde-shows-no-middle-ground-remains-on-abortion-in-presidential-politics/5cf7e9281ad2e52231e8e9c5/

[BannonsLiver]

1. There's no middle ground left on anything in politics.

[trev]

2. That's right.

There is no middle ground. Either women have equal rights, or they do not.

That simple.

[highplainsdem]

3. No, what the blowback mainly shows is that Biden's rivals have failed to decrease his lead using

other issues, so they're seizing on this.

As I posted in another thread, in 2016 nearly 40% of Clinton voters were opposed to federal funding via Medicaid for abortions.

Clinton voters.

Fewer than 60% of Clinton voters were in favor of Medicaid paying for abortions.

Well over half of all voters polled are opposed to Medicaid paying for abortions.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287141916

[George II]

13. I'm sure that's the case. Looking at the top five or six or even seven candidates, only one....

....has not (yet) resorted to criticizing any others.

[napi21]

4. Large sections of rural Pa. will support Joe for this statement, and he needs to win the votes

from this group to take down Orangeman. That's the Group that gave Orangeman the PA win in 2016. Besides, it's not the President who would negate the Hyde amendment, it's Congress. If Congress passed a bill toget rid ofe the AHAyde amendment, I'm reasonably sure Joe wouldn't veto it.

[emmaverybo]

8. I think his Hyde stance is political, and it is good political strategy for the reason you gave. nt

[Thekaspervote]

12. Agree!

[emmaverybo]

5. The Hyde amendment does not stop Medicaid from funding abortions for victims of incest or rape.

As well, 15 states use their own funds to provide Medicaid assisted abortions to women whose situation does not meet the extreme restrictions set by Hyde.
Not good enough, true.
But in 2020, the Hyde amendment will not be repealed, so we have to work on protecting Roe vs. Wade, providing better access to pregnancy prevention to low income women, protecting planned parenthood, and on Senate races.

[ucrdem]

6. Lots of suspicious truth-bending here:

"Before Hyde became the law of the land"? It isn't. The original law failed in 1997 and Hyde died in 2007. Subsequent efforts to pass it into law have also failed.

Warren: "It will be women who have been raped." No, the current Hyde rider allows federal funding for abortion in cases of rape. She's a lawyer so she knows better.

[emmaverybo]

11. I can not believe she made a statement that flys in the face of the facts. She also brought up

victims of family members when she should know Hyde does not restrict federal funding for incest.
Rape and incest, the two examples she uses to make her case, ironically are the exceptions Hyde allows for.

[ucrdem]

14. That's concerning.

Demagoguing against Trump is fine but that's where it should end.

[George II]

7. This very sensible OP was posted earlier today:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287141746

Guess who else voted against federal funding for abortion?

AN EXAMPLE: ELIZABETH WARREN SAYS SHE DOESN’T LIKE THE HYDE AMENDMENT … Warren told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday night that “we do not pass laws that take away the freedom from the women who are most vulnerable.” Her team tweeted: “I will not support any effort to take rights away from women who are the most vulnerable. It’s time for Hyde to go. #WarrenTownHall”

… BUT, OF COURSE, SHE’S VOTED FOR IT! It doesn’t take long to find an example of Warren voting for the Hyde Amendment. Take this bill, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6157?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+6157%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=4

which funded a big chunk of the government last year.

IT INCLUDED this language: “(a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.”

WARREN voted for this bill twice. So did Michael Bennet, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Eric Swalwell and others. Bernie Sanders voted no. President DONALD TRUMP signed it into law.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/06/06/guess-who-else-voted-against-federal-funding-for-abortion-443667?cid=su_tw_pb

All-caps emphasis is Politico's, not mine.

[ucrdem]

10. Why let the truth get in the way of a good meme?

I think we might be seeing another Franken maneuver here. I don't think it will succeed.

[Jose Garcia]

9. If Biden's poll numbers don't dip in the next week, will the author admit

there is indeed a middle ground?

[FloridaBlues]

15. Of course his Dem opponents go against him.

They should expect the same when it comes to issues for them

[JHB]

16. The "middle ground" approach has been tried, and that outreach...

...has been swatted away every time.

Only one side in this is bent on forcing its views on the other.

It's not just about abortion, either. They're out to outlaw contraception too, and they can't do that by compromising.

So yeah, in the face of stated passing laws that form the road to Gilead, there are a lot of people who hear the "middle ground" rhetoric and aren't having it.