Joe Biden's long evolution on abortion rights still holds surprises

[melman]

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Joe Biden’s decades-long evolution on abortion rights has in many ways mirrored the changing attitudes of the Democratic Party, growing increasingly supportive over time.

But his past opposition to most federal funding for abortion services is more striking than previously recognized, according to an NBC News review of his Senate voting record, and includes repeated examples of Biden rejecting exceptions for victims of rape and incest that were supported by many members of his party at the time.

As a U.S. senator from Delaware, Biden voted against a 1977 compromise that allowed Medicaid to fund abortions that included exceptions for victims of rape and incest in addition to concerns for the life of the mother. While the rape and incest exceptions passed in that case, Biden voted in 1981 to again remove them, in what was the most far-reaching ban on federal funds ever enacted by Congress.

---

In that 1981 vote, he was one of just two Democratic senators from the Northeast, the other being George Mitchell of Maine, to vote to end federal funding for abortion for victims of rape and incest. Fellow Catholics Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York as well as Democrats from other blue-leaning Northeastern states supported the exceptions. Biden voted in line with conservative Republicans like Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Democrats from red states like Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

---
And while Biden later became a staunch defender of Roe, in addition to consistently opposing federal funding of abortions, he did vote in 1981 for a failed constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe. At the time, he called it “the single most difficult vote I’ve cast as a U.S. senator.”

When it came up again the following year, Biden voted against the bill.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-long-evolution-abortion-rights-still-holds-surprises-n1013846

[Sloumeau]

1. It sounds like Biden has been supporting abortion rights for 38 years.

Sounds good to me!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. When did he finally reverse on the Hyde Amendment?

[Sloumeau]

4. The Hyde Amendment was designed to allow places like Planned

Parenthood to still get federal funding when Republicans threatened to cut off funds completely. Because only 3% of what Planned Parent does involves abortion, it allowed Planned Parenthood to still receive the overwhelming majority of its funding.

[NurseJackie]

5. Thank you!

[Sloumeau]

6. You are very welcome.

A nurse would know.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. Wow that's some serious twisting

The Amendment took away public funding from poor women to the tune of 300,000 abortions previously covered per year.

[Demsrule86]

10. Remember Heath Mello.?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. Is that a candy bar?

[Demsrule86]

27. Sanders wishes it was now.

Instead of him endorsing and campaigning for anti-choice candidates in 17.

[melman]

29. Remember Dan Lipinski?

No? Well let me remind you.

--
Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski’s career is on life-support. The seven-term congressman from the Chicago area, who inherited his seat from his father, is facing a formidable primary challenge from businesswoman Marie Newman, whose campaign has been fueled by progressive anger at Lipinski’s opposition to reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and Obamacare. EMILY’s List, the national organization that supports pro-choice women candidates, has backed Newman and, along with a host of progressive groups—including Planned Parenthood and the pro-LGBT rights Human Rights Campaign—has spent heavily on ads against Lipinski

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nancy-pelosi-just-endorsed-a-congressman-who-opposes-abortion-and-gay-rights/


--


Lipinski has ruffled liberal feathers for years with his staunch opposition to abortion, his vote against ObamaCare, repeated efforts to resist an expansion of LGBT rights and his position on immigration, including a vote against the Dream Act in 2010. During the Trump administration, when those issues have risen to prominence and the "Me Too" movement against sexual harassment and assault is sweeping the country, Newman’s liberal supporters say the time is ripe for Lipinski to go.

“The people of Illinois' 3rd district want a pro-health care, pro-immigrant, pro-woman, pro-LGBTQ Member of Congress to represent them in Washington,” Schakowsky said in endorsing Newman. “Unfortunately, the current member does not reflect those values.”

The Democratic leaders have given Lipinski more than just their endorsements. Both Hoyer and Crowley have contributed thousands of dollars to Lipinski’s campaign this cycle.

The endorsement from Pelosi is particularly notable. She was the leading force behind the passage of ObamaCare in the House, has been a life-long champion of LGBT rights and access to abortion, the Dream Act was among her last victories as House Speaker, and Lipinski has regularly voted against her in the lower chamber’s biennial leadership races.

Still, Pelosi didn’t hesitate this month when asked if she supported the Illinois Blue Dog.

“Yes, I do,” she said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377660-dem-leaders-rally-behind-lipinski-in-tough-primary-contest

[Demsrule86]

50. Did Joe Biden or any other Democratic candidate endorse and campaign for him...no.

Sanders said we had to rethink our party and accept, endorse etc...people who had voted as Perriello and Mello had done in 2017. And he has made other remarks about identity politics and called Planned Parenthood establishment. So this is an issue if he is smart, he will stay away from. And posting a 46 year old position Joe Biden took once upon a time won't help Sanders...just the opposite.

[melman]

9. Well...

Planned Parenthood slammed Biden’s continued support for the Hyde Amendment in a statement to NBC.

“The unfair Hyde Amendment makes it so that those who have the least end up having to pay the most to access abortion, and those who are service members or live on reservations are often left with no coverage for abortion care,” Kelly Robinson, Planned Parenthood Action Fund's executive director, said.

“We encourage any candidate who doesn't recognize Hyde's impact to speak to the women it hurts most — particularly on women of color and women with low incomes — to learn more about the harmful impacts of this discriminatory policy," Robinson said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447023-biden-2020-campaign-confirms-he-supports-controversial-abortion-rule-report

[Sloumeau]

12. Republicans always wanted to find a way to defund Planned Parenthood

entirely, because they knew that Planned Parenthood could still do abortions through fundraising. So, during the Trump Administration, they simply created no referral requirements for places like Planned Parenthood, which Planned Parenthood would never follow, in order to justify defunding them entirely.

Trump Administration Blocks Funds for Planned Parenthood and Others Over Abortion Referrals
[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/health/trump-defunds-planned-parenthood.html|]

Are we better off now? This is what Biden was trying to avoid.

[melman]

13. Kelly Robinson, Planned Parenthood Action Fund's executive director seems to see it differently

But hey, what does she know...right?

[Sloumeau]

16. Let's ask her if she would rather have what Biden supported...

where 97% of what Planned Parenthood is funded, or what the Trump Administration did, by defunding Planned Parenthood entiredly. What do you think she will say?

[melman]

17. Let's just look at what she actually *did* say

What she actually did say -- in an official statement --goes totally against the way you're trying to spin this.

[Sloumeau]

19. OK, let's look at what she did say:

[link:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447023-biden-2020-campaign-confirms-he-supports-controversial-abortion-rule-report|

“The unfair Hyde Amendment makes it so that those who have the least end up having to pay the most to access abortion, and those who are service members or live on reservations are often left with no coverage for abortion care,” Kelly Robinson, Planned Parenthood Action Fund's executive director, said.

“We encourage any candidate who doesn't recognize Hyde's impact to speak to the women it hurts most — particularly on women of color and women with low incomes — to learn more about the harmful impacts of this discriminatory policy," Robinson said.

Well, she's gotta be totally happy now, right? I mean, since the Trump Administration's new rule resulted in Planned Parenthood no longer getting any federal funding, the Hyde Amendment no longer makes any difference whatsoever. She's gotta be so happy that the nasty Hyde Amendment makes no difference whatsoever, right? I bet if we called her up right now, she would be so happy that the Hyde Amendment no longer has any effect at all. She must be dancing on moonbeams right now!

[melman]

21. So if the Hyde Amendment is so wonderful...

..then why did he change his position on it?

--

ATLANTA — After two days of intense criticism, Joseph R. Biden Jr. reversed himself Thursday night on one of the issues most important to Democratic voters, saying he no longer supports a measure that bans federal funding for most abortions.

As recently as Wednesday, Mr. Biden’s campaign had said he supported the measure, known as the Hyde Amendment. His decision to change positions illustrates the intense pressure he faces as the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/us/politics/joe-biden-hyde-amendment.html

[Sloumeau]

25. I never said the Hyde Amendment was wonderful.

The Hyde Amendment was a compromise in order to prevent places like Planned Parenthood from losing their funding altogether. As for why he changed his position, that is answered in your own post:

His decision to change positions illustrates the intense pressure he faces as the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.

[Salviati]

28. And I would argue that he has changed his position on the compromise because...

... the other party to the compromise has pulled out of their side, saying it is no longer acceptable, and is demanding more.

Rather than compromise further, he has re-evaluated his position and is saying enough is enough, the anti-choice side of the issue is no longer being reasonable (as if they ever were) and there is no sense in trying to compromise with them.

This is the type of behavior we want to encourage, to stop trying to compromise with unreasonable people.

[melman]

3. Well..

In a 1994 letter to constituents — written during negotiations over health care during the Clinton administration — Biden noted he had “on no fewer than 50 occasions” voted against federal funding for abortions. “Those of us who are opposed to abortions should not be compelled to pay for them,” Biden wrote on April 7, 1994.

In March of 1986, he told the Catholic Diocese Newspaper that “abortion is wrong from the moment of conception” and seemed to offer the National Conference of Catholic Bishops moral support in pushing for limits, noting the “most effective pro-life groups are those who keep trying to push back the frontier.”

“I think medical science is moving the frontier back so that by the year 2000 we’re going to have more and more pressure, and rightfully so in my view, of moving back further and further the circumstances under which an abortions can be had,” Biden told the paper.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-long-evolution-abortion-rights-still-holds-surprises-n1013846

[Sloumeau]

7. Yes, and by voting against the federal funding of abortion,

Biden allowed places like Planned Parenthood to still recieve funding for the 97% of services that it did that did not involve abortion.

[Thekaspervote]

11. thank you for your informed post!! And setting the record straight

[Sloumeau]

14. Thekaspervote, you are very welcome. eom

[Demsrule86]

15. It was a compromise...and the pure among us should consider...the GOP would have won on

federal money for abortion anyway, but planned parenthood would be gone.

[UniteFightBack]

45. This all or nothing mentality is quite corrosive. People forget we are supposed to be compromsing

and nobody should be getting 100% of what they want. Now the GOP has said fuck it and we are going to go outside the bounds and outside the lines while the Democrats debate policy and gee whiz who aligns with my values.

WAKE UP PEOPLE ...there will be no policy talk if we don't take care of these Russiapublicans and of course dump.
WHO CARES what this one and that one said a million years ago - it's about beating dump and who can do that most HANDILY...it's clear who we need to vote for..enough of this and lets start rallying around and getting to work to defeat dump

[myohmy2]

20. wow...

" Biden noted he had “on no fewer than 50 occasions” voted against federal funding for abortions. “Those of us who are opposed to abortions should not be compelled to pay for them,” Biden wrote on April 7, 1994. "

...

[melman]

23. Yes but that's apparently okay because...

he did it to save Planned Parenthood! I read that right here in this thread so it must be true.

[PandoraAwakened]

32. Right?

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2020, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

See my comment below (#30). Speaks to the same thing.

[ehrnst]

42. .....1994....Goodness me...

One gets to go back 25 years for problematic abortion commentary in a Candidate?

May, 2019

Todd asked the senator from Vermont if he was “concerned about this idea that people may try to worry about the sex of a child, or essentially, are those types of restrictions on abortions something you’re open to?” Instead of swatting away the unfounded concern that people may be terminating pregnancies after finding out the sex of the fetus — or at the very least pleading ignorance on the matter — Sanders doubled down on Todd’s assertion, saying, “That, I mean, that’s a concern … that’s an issue that society has got to deal with, and it is of concern.”

Todd followed up by asking Sanders how he would “deal with that in the law?” Sanders replied, “I don’t know how, at this particular point. I would deal with it, but that is an issue we really have got to deal with.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-chuck-todd-terrible-takes-on-abortion-837317/

...

...One would hope that a truly pro-choice candidate would be concerned enough to be informed what right wing myths are being pushed in an effort to attack abortion by demonizing women who have abortions. Or at least one wouls hope the candidate ave the wherewithal and guts to say, "I hadn't heard that's happening," rather than try to act like they are informed on something when they aren't...

...As my dear grandmother used to say, "You gotta admit when you've stepped in it, so you don't go tracking it all over the floor."....

2012...

SANDERS: You got a lot of great people. I`ve been meeting with trade unionist, independents, progressive democrats, and they are tired of being abandoned by the National Democratic Party. They want some help and they believe that was somehow they can start winning in these conservative states. And what they are saying very clearly is that in Mississippi, in Alabama, in Georgia, South Carolina people are hurting. These are low income states.

And, what concerns me is that you have many white working class people who are voting against their own best interest. These are guys getting hang up (ph), on gay marriage issues, they`re getting hang up on abortion issues and it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bringus together, defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, the veterans programs are not cut.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53334307/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/

...

....Bernie wanted Democratic leadership to back off issues concerning health care access specific to women health and basic human rights for LGBTQ parents and partners, in order to make Southern white bigoted conservatives in the South a less nervous about Democrats...as if they will suddenly then vote for the Democrat who only talks about how they will have more money if you vote for them, and ignore the whole social justice part of what Democrats are.....

...Not so much a 'ram-it-down-their-throats' strategy, as you have stated Bernie will lead, yes?...

....The thing is, Trump got the votes of people with cultural anxiety as their first priorty (you know, those who are hung up on abortion, gay marriage and immigration of brown people) and Clinton - the unabashed socially liberal candidate, got the votes of people with economic anxiety, so Bernie's predictions weren't really accurate....

...Throwing women's reproductive health and LGBTQ rights under the bus in an attempt to distract those bigoted white working class voters with economic promises doesn't really work in practice....

.... ...

[UniteFightBack]

47. So far no replies to your post. Interesting. nt

[delisen]

24. Thanks. Human rights of women are non-negotiable for me.

Sorry to see any Democratic office holder not championing the human rights of women or encouraging any group working against the right and freedom of women.

[PandoraAwakened]

41. +1000! Now that's what true courage sounds like!

Watch out though, someone might slander you as the "pure" among us. I hear it's an oft-used way to show disdain and dismissiveness for such opinions.

Personally, I'm quite proud of being "pure as the driven snow" on this particular issue, and you are absolutely correct that human rights of women are non-negotiable. I would add that they should never have been used as a negotiating chip in the first place and those who have engaged in such behavior should reap the karma of their actions.

[PandoraAwakened]

30. Okayyyyy...

Does anyone else find it odd when tRump claims some news article says one thing and then when you read it, you can clearly see that it says exactly the opposite of what he just claimed?

It's a fascinating phenomenon, really.
Hope it's not contagious because there seems to be a lot of that going on here.

Thank you Melman for setting the record straight with this article. Thank you also for your cogent responses that exhibit a clearheadedness about the damage done by well-intentioned moderates who consistently blunder their way into enabling Rethugs in their campaign of chip-chip-chipping away at women's reproductive rights.

[ChubbyStar]

33. Craven behavior is always repugnant

I would argue that most people don't usually blunder into things, and when they do, they are generally concerned with covering their own ass when they get called out for it.

[PandoraAwakened]

38. You are, of course, totally correct.

I was trying to be nice because if I use a more accurate, truthful descriptor, particularly if it might be construed in any way to apply to someone whose "name shall not be spoken" here except in the most sycophantic terms, some will feel compelled to throw a hissy-fit & insist my voice be silenced.

DISCLAIMER: Everything I just said does not apply to anyone in particular. It's all just random musings about an alternative-facts world where up is down, left is right, and poor women are never, ever oppressed by a certain group of persons who believe it's their God-given right to dictate the comings and goings of vaginas and uteruses. Never happened. It's all make-believe. Got it?

SILENCE IS VIOLENCE

[progressoid]

18. 18 to 33 percent of Medicaid-eligible women who want abortions are now forced to give birth

1. The law’s impact is limited almost entirely to poor women. The late Henry Hyde (R-IL), the conservative congressman who first proposed the amendment, acknowledged this reality during a Medicaid funding debate in 1977, when he told his colleagues:

“I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle-class woman or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the… Medicaid bill.”

2. About 42 percent of women who have abortions live below the poverty line. The unintended pregnancy rate among poor women is five times the rates for higher-income women, as is the abortion rate. One reported reason for the discrepancy is poor women’s limited access to contraception.

3. By restricting Medicaid funding for abortion, one in four low-income women who would like to obtain abortions are instead forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Since the Hyde Amendment was enacted more than 35 years ago, over one million women have been unable to afford abortions.

...https://billmoyers.com/content/five-facts-you-should-know-about-the-hyde-amendment/

[stonecutter357]

26. good let's go Joe !

[NYMinute]

31. lol

[melman]

35. Weird

I know that song and he's not saying blah blah blah. He's saying "my baby's request"

[George II]

36. Ob La Di - Ob La Da....

[boomer_wv]

34. Biden

Would nominate pro choice judges. That's all that really matters here.

[PandoraAwakened]

37. As would every last one of the Democratic candidates,

which, thankfully, allows us to move on to more immediate criteria in our decision-making...criteria that is having real life negative impacts on hundreds of thousands of women right now and that doesn't need to wait for future judicial appointments to turn it around.

Totally agree: pro-choice judges an important criteria. Check, check, check, check, check, check...looks like all the candidates have that box covered.

Next: Will actively use the DOJ to fight the Rethuglicans' INCREMENTAL chipping away of women's reproductive rights under the guise of "states rights": Check, check, check, check...uh-oh, looks like someone in the woodpile can't check that box.

Thinking it through in this way at least tells me who doesn't deserve my support.

[boomer_wv]

39. Well.

Whoever you vote for you better be sure can actually beat Trump, because if you make the wrong pick you're going to have another four years of him going after abortion, and in much worse ways. Oh, and he's going to get at least one more SC pick in that time. Make the wrong pick and they WILL overturn RVW.

Oh, did I mention that Warren is polling worst against Trump of any of the front runners? Bloomberg even does better.

[PandoraAwakened]

56. Fearless...can't touch that

Last edited Mon Jan 20, 2020, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I've never cast a vote out of fear and not about to start doing so now.

I do, however, always take note of which candidate(s)' supporters engage in pushing fear as the main reason to vote for their guy.

Personally, I'm more concerned with picking a candidate who has the intelligence, energy, persistence, and, frankly, the guts to force not only a recount, but a forensic cyber-investigation in the 4 states that are going to be used to throw a rigged Electoral College "win" to tRump in 2020.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to read applicable sections of the Mueller Report, Congressional testimony on the topic from FBI Director Wray and multiple panels of cybersecurity experts, plus reports from pretty much every intelligence agency we have, all blinking big red warning lights.

After that, give yourself a refresher course on President Al Gore's stolen election and the mistakes made in the aftermath of that theft.

Gives you a whole new perspective on which of these candidates have what it takes to right the ship when that tidal wave hits. In the current lineup, I only see 4 who could get us there.

[MineralMan]

43. As you bring out stories about Biden from the 1970s and 1980s, please

keep in mind that stories about Bernie Sanders will be coming out, as well. If he becomes the nominee, they will appear, as if by magic, to damage his campaign.

So, by all means...keep bringing up old stories about candidates you don't like. Just remember that there are stories about everyone. Everyone.

Things that happened 30, 40, or even 50 years ago and attitudes held long ago are essentially irrelevant, but can be damaging to a candidate. You're busy bringing them out about candidates you don't prefer. Just remember that your favored candidate also has such things in the past. I won't mention them now, but the Republicans will trumpet them to the skies if your favortite becomes the nominee. I predict you will complain bitterly that those stories are irrelevant when they do appear.

Please stop.

[melman]

48. Two things

1. I didn't "bring this out". It's a story reported by NBC News.


2. There are always negative Bernie threads here. Constantly. Why don't we ever see you scold the people that post those?


for example:

this thread here


or how about this thread over here?


or maybe this thread over here


All these threads have two things in common:


1.They're "bringing out" old stuff about Bernie.

2. You're not in any of them lecturing the OP


Please stop.

[MineralMan]

49. You brought it here, didn't you?

As for your whataboutism, I'm only responsible for my own threads, just as you are responsible for yours. I am not responsible for anyone but myself, and neither are you. Whataboutism is no defense. As for why I don't scold others, that is also not my responsibility. I don't read every thread in this or any other forum. You can use tu quoque arguments all day long, but they do not change what you posted here.

Good luck to you.

[melman]

51. It's not whataboutism

It's pointing out the very true truth that you don't actually have a problem with "bringing stuff out"

You have a problem with this specific thread because you don't like what the article says.


And that is just too bad. It really is too too bad.


Because looking at a candidate's record is not only legitimate, it's necessary.


So I don't want to "change what I posted here" and I'm not sure why you'd think I would.

I mean, it really seems like it's you that wants to change what's posted here. And that's too bad. Because this thread was already removed and restored on appeal. So I think you're really just going to have to deal with. it.

[MineralMan]

52. I did deal with your post, in the same way I always do.

I posted a reply in the thread. I don't want you to change your post. I wanted to say something about your post, so I did.

As for your protestations regarding "whataboutism," I have no need to comment. Your post illustrates the very definition of the word.

If you post something, I might reply to it. That's DU for you.

[melman]

53. lol

No it doesn't.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"


You didn't have an argument. Just a scolding complaint.


What's my rebuttal supposed to be to that? "It's not actually bad to post this stuff here"?


I don't need to make that argument because it's self-evident that that's what this board is for


Done here.

[ehrnst]

55. +1000.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Candidates who have been in politics for a significant length of time

will inevitably have voted for bills or said or done other things that they probably would not do now, and might even regret having done. They might have changed their minds about some issues over the years; they might have decided it was necessary to compromise on some aspect of a bill in order to get another part of it passed; they might have written or said things that don't cast them in a very good light; they might have disreputable relatives; they might have engaged in financial transactions that seem inconsistent with their professed political or ethical positions, and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, if whatever is being complained about didn't happen in the recent past and didn't involve a felony or some grotesquely awful personal behavior, I'm not interested.

[UniteFightBack]

44. Oh look! Melman you are undecided?!?! Yeah uhuh. nt

[melman]

46. I've already explained this but

I don't like the candidate 'badge' thingies. If it we were required to have one in order to post here, I would have one.


But it's not required and I don't want to have one. So I don't.

[NCProgressive]

57. Interesting isn't it?

One Sanders supporter was showing as a Biden supporter, a couple call themselves Warren supporters and one prolific Sanders supporter is showing Steyer as her preferred candidate.

I think the plot is for them to switch at once just before Iowa and give Bernie a fake momentum by taking him from 9% to 10%.

[MineralMan]

58. As if it mattered what a few people on DU think...

The only people who know about DU are DUers. I've never met another person in real life who has even heard of Democratic Underground. That's fine, because it's a great place for a small group of people to discuss politics from a Democratic point of view.

[dsc]

59. I realize this is a side issue but to call the WV of 1981 a red state is patently absurd

West Virginia was carried by Dukakis, Clinton both times. It had two Democratic senators until 2015. It had a Democratic governor until Justice switched parties in 2017.