Did Joe Biden say he might REVERT to favoring the Hyde Amendment in the FUTURE !?!

[uawchild]

Biden's abrupt U-turn on abortion could cost him in the long run

Analysis: His reaction may have chipped away at his narrative — and at confidence in his decision-making — in ways that hurt him over the course of time.

By Jonathan Allen

...
Last month, to little fanfare, Biden told an ACLU activist that he would roll back the Hyde amendment.

But his campaign told NBC's Heidi Przybyla, in an article published Wednesday, that he still supported the provision, touching off explicit and implicit criticism from abortion-rights groups, Democratic activists and even some of his rivals for the nomination. He was getting pounded.

Ironically, for a candidate long thought to be most prone to inflicting self-harm through an off-the-cuff remark, this was no gaffe. But it did turn into a major mistake — and one that could cost him in the long run.

"I make no apologies for my last position, and I make no apologies for what I’m about to say," he said. "I can’t justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to ... exercise their constitutionally protected right. If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code."

And still, Biden said, if the threat of accessibility for poor women was removed, he might revert to favoring the Hyde amendment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-authenticity-risk-abortion-flap-n1014931

What? Did Joe Biden actually say that? That he might REVERT to favoring the Hyde Amendment?

Doesn't he realize that the Hyde Amendment Itself is "a threat to the accessibility" for poor women?

So... Joe Biden was FOR the Hyde Amendment, then, maybe, AGAINST it, then FOR it, then, as of last night, AGAINST it... BUT might REVERT to favoring it in the future?

C'mon man. Talk about trying to straddle the fence on an issue.

[stonecutter357]

1. let's go Joe !

[tonedevil]

3. Schrodinger's Biden /nt

[shanny]

4. Good one. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. LMFAO!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[jalan48]

5. Does the Evolving Door turn both ways?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Apparently, but, hopefully, Joe's political advisers will soon straighten out their messaging.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MineralMan]

6. Does anyone think this can be kept alive until the primaries

are held? I don't.

Other issues are going to get much more focus, I'm pretty sure. The takeaway is that Biden's on board with getting rid of the Hyde Amendment.

Since several other Democratic candidates also voted for those restrictions in the past, as well, it's not an issue that will hold up, really.

Biden wants to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.

That's his position.

[ancianita]

7. Agreed. Well said.

[crazytown]

8. "kept alive until the primaries"? No.

[WoonTars]

9. Until it isn't his position... again...

And yeah, women's rights issues are "going to hold up" especially with the number of solid female candidates in the field..

[MarcA]

12. There will be more opportunities for the Biden Excuse machine. n/t

[peggysue2]

31. Whipping the Dead Horse is . . .

a tried and true obsession in some parts. Maybe the tail or hooves will be reanimated with a few more whacks.

The Hyde Amendment controversy is over, done. The fact that posters and columnists need to whack it a few more times is pretty sad. No one wants to admit that many of our candidates voted for bills that included Hyde's renewal, a political fact of life.

Joe Biden has now stated his position, words from his own mouth, that he would dump the policy.

Case closed.

[enough]

10. This seems so out of touch with current reality and current politics.

The sexism and classism of this stance is just too obvious

[OKNancy]

11. So a month ago the article says he was in favor of walking back on the Hyde Amendment

"to little fanfare" . Then someone on his staff contradicts this.. then he says in Atlanta that he is against...

So as later stated in the article... this was awkward. As far as the other statement, I have no idea, however it seems to me that he his getting the Hillary treatment. Making some early missteps are being blown up to be something they aren't.

I am positive when all is said and done Biden will promote fairness and fully support Roe and also make sure poor women have access to all forms of reproductive health services.

[George II]

17. And unfortunately now an "analyst" has to make something up without actually quoting Biden.

Yes, he's the front runner, by far, so he's getting the Hillary treatment.

Sad that some "Democrats" have to resort to this already.

[Celerity]

21. No, his campaign said he misheard the question from the ACLU activist, claimed he thought it was

about the 'Mexico City' global gag rule policy. They said he still was for the Hyde Amendment, and kept saying it right up until he flipped yesterday.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-hyde-amendment-abortion-medicaid_n_5cf7e72fe4b067df5ca1e396

Former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden reiterated his support Wednesday for the Hyde Amendment ― which bars federal funding from going toward abortion procedures, and which he voted for as a senator in 1976 ― after he told a constituent in South Carolina last month that “it can’t stay.”

The Democratic front-runner’s campaign told HuffPost that he “misheard” the constituent, and thought he was responding to a question about the so-called Mexico City policy, the “global gag rule” that bans organizations abroad from providing any information about abortion or offering abortion services if they are funded by the U.S. NBC noted on Wednesday that the campaign and the candidate appeared to be at odds on Hyde.

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

The support appears to differ from what Biden told an American Civil Liberties Union volunteer when asked about the Hyde Amendment last month.

“It can’t stay,” he said.

The Biden campaign told The Hill that Biden misheard the ACLU volunteer and thought she was referring to the Mexico City rule, which prevents federal aid money from going to organizations overseas that perform abortions.

Biden has never changed his support for Hyde Amendment, the campaign clarified.

Also, in those articles (remember those were before he flipped to anti Hyde yesterday) he said he might revert to being against it if certain scenarios took place (abortion rights being threatened).

BUT NOW, AFTER all that, after he has flipped to being officially against the Hyde Amendment, he claims he may REVERT BACK TO BEING FOR IT, again given certain circumstances.

He is all over the place. Not a good look.

[George II]

22. When did he say "he may REVERT BACK TO BEING FOR IT"? That's the second time I've seen this here.

[Celerity]

28. You will have to ask the NBC reporter Allen, unless you are accusing him of making it up out of

whole cloth. I see no reason why he would put his career at risk by putting in a blatant lie.

[George II]

29. Then I'll take it that Biden never said it. The other reference earlier on DU was also from Allen.

Allen never actually quoted Biden, and his piece was labeled "analysis" by NBC.

[Celerity]

30. I will try and find confirmation, but it is disingenuous to try and and shift it immediately to

a stance of 'Biden didn't say it' as a first stance, when it was clearly reported by a major news network (NBC), by one of their reporters, that he did say that and you have nothing to show that he did not say it.

You are literally accusing the journalist of lying and/or making things up with no evidence to show that.

[melman]

32. Full remarks here

Link to tweet

"I've supported the Hyde Amendment like many, many others have because there were sufficient monies..."


then...


"But I want to be clear with you, I don't want to mislead you. If in fact, if in fact it was still available..."


Certain people will say it doesn't count because he didn't use those exact words. He didn't say "I might revert.."


But that clearly is what he's saying. He's leaving open the possibility of changing his mind.

[uawchild]

33. It's clear that the paraphrase in the OP article is accurate.

Thank you for providing this information.

[George II]

50. Not even close. But if one wants it to "read" that way, one can read it that way.

[Celerity]

36. thanks for digging this up

here is a video of it btw

https://www.facebook.com/KMPHFOX26/videos/the-democratic-national-committee-holds-a-gala-to-promote-voting-featuring-joe-b/1126028100923720/

[George II]

49. How does that say, hint, or imply that he could change his mind ("revert") on what he had just said?

It simply doesn't.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Not a good look... Joe needs to work with his advisers to get his messaging down.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[George II]

34. Well, Allen did a long article about Biden's stance yesterday....

....and if Biden said what he claims, a good journalist would quote it instead of vaguely paraphrasing it.

I've looked, the only references on google I've seen to Biden "reverting" is in that opinion piece with the vague statement and here on DU, referencing Allen's piece.

Not believing a vague attribution without a quote certainly isn't "disingenuous".

[Celerity]

35. well to be fair, Biden was not very linear with his word flow, but he did say it, and here it is

I watched a replay of it, and he was not as on point at this juncture of his remarks as he often is. Biden quickly left the stage as well (said he was in a hurry) but in the video a group of reporters did corner him offstage and sarted asking him questions, but then the camera panned to Al Sharpton and it (the video) ended, so I have no clue if Allen asked additional questions of VP Biden.


direct text of his speech (h/t to Melman for finding it)

[George II]

37. If one attributes a statement to a candidate, the least one should do is quote it directly....

Jonathan Allen didn't. Since presumably it was said in a "gaggle", someone else would have reported on it too, but Allen's report is the only one. I stand by my original suspicion, it didn't happen.

[Celerity]

38. I just gave you the transcript of Bidens own words, where he says it, roflmaoooo

SMDH

[George II]

39. Yes you did, but unless I missed it, he never said or even implied that he would "revert".

SYDH as much as you want, but I don't see it in the transcript you posted.

[Celerity]

41. revert is an accurate paraphrase to what Biden's intent was in his own speech

You are playing semantic words games to try and deflect from what Biden said and not operating in good faith. You are trying to bend and twist and twist and bend, trying to falsely frame and to imbue doubt all because the basic gist of the OP has been borne out to be accurate and you do not like it.

I am done here, I refuse to participate in (here is that word again) a disingenuous colloquy.

[George II]

42. I'm not playing semantics, I just don't see even a hint of what is being claimed, not a hint....

I'm not bending and twisting, others are bending and twisting in an attempt to claim Biden said/hinted/implied something that just simply didn't happen.

The basic gist of the OP has not been borne out to be accurate, and I'm clearly not the only one here who sees that.

To wrap this up, yes, this is a disingenuous colloquy, but it's certainly not coming from me.

[Celerity]

43. my last reply

Read his words, the ones circled in red, it isn't hard to do (no matter how clumsily he spoke) I also have provided a link above in another reply to the video of the entire thing if you think Melman and CNN's Sara Mucha somehow cooked up that transcript themselves.

cheers

[George II]

44. I did, twice and also the bigger excerpt (which has the same words) twice.....

....(that's four times total) I can't imagine how anyone can see him hinting, even remotely, that he's talking about reverting back to the Hyde Amendment at sometime in the future.

[tonedevil]

52. It's right there in his words...

"If in fact, if in fact it was still available" Prior to that he has been saying that he and many others supported the Hyde Amendment because there was plenty of private money available and now sufficient private monies are no longer available, but if they were. "I think, just as I've never attempted to impose my views on anyone else as to when life begins I have never attempted to impose my view on who should pay for it" He has established the situation has changed and he is changing his position in response to that change, but he did indicate if private money was sufficiently available he would prefer not to make people who don't accept abortion as legitimate pay for abortions. Which would be a return to his position of support for the amendment. How else do you interpret those words?

[melman]

56. Never got an answer

Interesting.

You'd think if someone was so adamant that it didn't mean that they'd be explain what it did mean. And yet...

[tonedevil]

57. I didn't expect much else. /nt

[uawchild]

40. diminishing returns

But , hey, it bumps the thread.

[Cha]

45. Jonathan Allen is one

of the co-authors who wrote that shite book on Hillary.

Like I'm really going to believe his spin on what Biden said.

[NYMinute]

13. Mental self-gratification

for supporters of one camp.

Rest of the world has moved on.

[Demit]

14. Curious how he leads off what he's going to say with the fact that he's making no apologies.

He stresses it, the way he did with reporters regarding hugging & kissing of women over the years when he said, "I'm not sorry for anything I've ever done."

I think it's very important to Joe Biden that he is never wrong, that it's his intentions that always are what matters most, and therefore he has nothing to apologize for.

[JudyM]

58. I'm afraid you're right.

I’ve been watching what he says and how he acts. I will say he’s good at being friendly. But that’s not what I’m looking for in a President.

[George II]

15. Where/when did he say that? Notice the article didn't use any of Biden's exact words....

He didn't.

This is just an attempt to keep the issue alive. Please stop!

[still_one]

19. I wouldn't rely on Johnathan Allen, who along with Amy Parnes wrote the book Shattered, professing

to be authorities why Hillary Lost. Much of their allegations were disputed by those who were part of the campaign.

Your impression is correct George, especially when it comes to Allen

[still_one]

16. There is no excuse for Biden's support for the Hyde Amendment. For whatever reason it was good that

he backtracked. That was the right thing to day.

As for this piece from Johnathan Allen, I remain skeptical, and want other sources for confirmation. Allen and Amy Parnes are the authors, of the book Shattered, identifying themselves as so called authorities why Hillary lost.

[George II]

18. I think it's telling that Jonathan Allen didn't present what Biden actually said.

[still_one]

23. I agree.

[Cha]

46. Remember Jonathan Allen

co-wrote that shite book on Hillary, "Shattered".

[still_one]

48. Yes, him and Amy Parnes

[PatSeg]

20. The Hyde Amendment

has been used by republicans for years to attack Democrats and Planned Parenthood. Until recently Democrats have compromised over and over again in an effort to protect Planned Parenthood, abortion rights, and most recently the ACA.

From Wikipedia:

Executive Order 13535 is an executive order announced by President Barack Obama on March 21, 2010, and signed on March 24. It reinforces a commitment to preservation of the Hyde Amendment's policy restricting federal funds for abortion within the context of recent health care legislation. The order was signed after an agreement with pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, who had said he and several other pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives would not support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unless the Bill's language prohibiting federal funding of abortions was strengthened.

The executive order was condemned as ineffective by major pro-life organizations, including the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Right to Life Committee, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,[6] Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and Americans United for Life, among others. The organizations said executive orders can be rescinded at any time by any administration. They also said the fact that an executive order was needed proves that the health care law did fund abortion. The National Right to Life Committee said the executive order did not correct seven provisions in the law they identified as objectionable.

Pro-choice groups also condemned the executive order, questioning Obama's commitment to the pro-choice position. The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and EMILY's List were among pro-choice groups opposing the executive order.

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

Apparently compromising on this issue has not served Democrats or women and Democratic politicians are finally putting their foot down. Joe was a little slow to catch up.

[SidDithers]

24. We see you...

Sid

[George II]

25. Why don't you answer your own question? Did he say he might REVERT?

[sop]

27. It's called Betteridge's Law of Headlines:

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." - Ian Betteridge, British technology journalist

[LanternWaste]

26. You'll of course, rationalize he didn't say that in such as way as to strengthen your bias, yes?

"C'mon man. Talk about blinding yourself due to bias on an issue..."

(space provided free of charge below for further rationalizations-- you gotta get as much mileage out of this before it becomes yesterday's jam... I have faith in you!!!!)

[jberryhill]

47. Joe Biden Loves Lamp

[Hekate]

55. No