NYT Joe Biden interview

[Buzz cook]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html

There's a lot there whether you support Biden or oppose him. There are links in the text on the site. Biden in italics.

LK: So I think it’s fair to say that this is a pretty extraordinary moment for reproductive rights. They’re more threatened than they probably have been since Roe v. Wade was passed.

In 2019 Alabama passed one of the country’s most restrictive abortion bills and a number of states passed “heartbeat” bills, essentially outlawing all abortions. Many worry that the newly empowered conservative majority in the Supreme Court will hear a case that allows them to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I agree.

LK: There are a lot of people who question whether you will go on the offensive for reproductive rights as much as is going to be necessary with Roe v. Wade under threat, given the fact that, while you are pro-choice certainly, you switched your position on Hyde only just recently.

The Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976 and is renewed annually. It bans all federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and threats to the woman’s life. Mr. Biden supported it for decades until he reversed his position in June.

For instance, you also originally argued for greater exemptions to the contraception mandate in Obamacare. So I think there’s some concern out there ——

No, I didn’t, by the way.

LK: You didn’t?

No, I was on the opposite side of that.

News reporting indicates that Mr. Biden was not on “the opposite side” of the contraception mandate debates. He reportedly argued that the contraception mandate would anger Catholic voters and threaten President Obama’s 2012 re-election. Read Bloomberg’s coverage of Mr. Biden’s stance at the time here.

LK: There was a lot of reporting from the time that said that you were arguing — I think it was a political strategy, right? That it might be read as trampling on religious freedom. But that’s not correct?

No. What is not correct is the idea that — the argument was what the president put out initially was different than what ended up being finally the final position on. And the question was, would I defend the president? I don’t want to get into ——