Instead of all the extreme outrage over the Hyde amendment

[LibFarmer]

which has no chance of being repealed,

let's focus on covering contraception under medicaid. There will be widespread support for it and will go a long way towards helping those affected by the Hyde amendment.

I personally think statements like "this disqualifies Biden" silly. Every candidate will have some minute issue that we will dislike especially on DU.

The election will be won over broader issues like decency, normalcy, competence, restoring American values and interests and cleaning up the mess left behind.

It will not be won over whether someone wants to eliminate fossil fuels in 12 years vs 15 years vs 20 years.
It will not be won over whether someone wants to mandate a $15 minimum wage nationally or $12 (or $13, 14, 16, 17, 20)
It will not be won over forcing everyone into a government funded health plan with no choice.

So, people, your outrage is noted but we have to keep our eye on the politics and winning the election.
Self-righteously insisting on a wish list and going down in defeat is not what any of us wants.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Contraception is covered under Medicaid.

People using contraception get pregnant. Abortion care is necessary care.

[LibFarmer]

4. Not all forms are covered

The modern "pill" has fewer side effects and less chance of developing cancer later and these "low-estrogen" pills are not covered.

[Mme. Defarge]

2. Well said!

No purity tests, eyes on the prize.

[BannonsLiver]

3. How dare you ask people to use contraception responsibly!1!1

“Won’t someone think of the children?!”

[LibFarmer]

5. lol nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. Haha, even 100% compliance with highly reliable contraception can result in unwanted pregnancies!

Hilarious! Maybe we should promote abstinence????

[emmaverybo]

6. Yes. We have been living with the Hyde amendment, embodied in ACA, signed off on by

President Obama, and it has no chance of being repealed with this Senate.

[progressoid]

24. So because Obama signed off on it and it's in the ACA, we should just accept it and move on.

Fuck, that makes a lot of sense.

[emmaverybo]

29. Must you use profanity to make your case? I find it rude and offensive when you do so in

a response to another member. Having said that, I believe low income people who qualify for
Medicaid in states in which Medicaid does not cover abortion should have funded access.
But I think the Hyde amendment a moot political point as it is being used against BIden.
And I believe it is being used politically.

[WoonTars]

39. Are you okay? Don't want you to faint and hurt yourself...

Of course it's being used politically, this is a primary for fudges sake. Gee willikers, whatever will happen next? Compare actual past voting records? Golly!! Or report on actual Corporate donations received? Heaven forfend...

I think i need a bit of a lie down now...

[emmaverybo]

41. Your F's and mockery do not strengthen your argument. nt

[WoonTars]

86. My 'F's'? Faint, Fudges or Forfend?

Didn't realize that was offensive. You must have had a hard time in middle school when kids learned really harsg words like Damn, and Asshole, and Booger...

Dang it!! Now i need another lie down...

[Cha]

88. Are you okay, WoonTars? Maybe you

should take your own advice?

[A HERETIC I AM]

66. "I find it rude and offensive when you do so in a response to another member. "

So?

So be offended. So find it rude.

Nothing happens. You'll be fine. It's not as if you'll wake up tomorrow and your arms have fallen off.

"Someone on the internet said something and I was offended!"

So the hell what? You won't get leprosy. They're just words. You've been a member here for a long bloody time. You can't handle profanity?

The words can't hurt you.

[emmaverybo]

67. I feel that profanity is unnecessary, uncivil, and detracts from any case. I stand offended. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

71. Well then just go on with your bad self!

"I stand offended"




OK, well the rest of us who are not so easily perturbed will....oh....I don't know.......




.




.






.


.
.
.





...............................stand over.............------------------>...........................................Here.

I'll bet you're a hoot at the Church Social!

[emmaverybo]

78. One cute response "Well then just go on with your bad self!" Hope OK to steal. 👏

[Lordquinton]

58. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now

If it matters as little as the Biden Bros like to claim, then why doesn't he just come out and clarify that when he said he didn't want to repeal it, that he actually meant that he supported repealing it?

[George II]

82. Who are the "Biden Bros"?

[sheshe2]

84. Good question.

Will sit right here awaiting their answer.

[ehrnst]

95. Yes, who exactly are "the Biden Bros?" (nt)

[Thekaspervote]

7. Thank you for your sensible post!!

[pazzyanne]

26. +1

[Hortensis]

9. This reflects the kind of agreement necessary to democracy,

where people of widely varying and conflicting beliefs somehow come together to make laws they can live with. Typically, agreeing to things of this sort would be in return for getting something else that's needed more.

Critically, healthy democracies are able to remain stable through these majority decisions that act as checks on extremism from both sides. Our nation is currently endangered because cooperation and compromise have broken down and extremists from both sides are demanding their way or nothing.

Once we get congress more back to normal and functioning properly, expect to see a lot more imperfect laws reflecting cooperation and compromises between peoples working together as intended.

Also, let's remember that the states all have their own legislatures and can and do pass laws that reflect the desires of their people. By far most funding is at the state and local level, not federal.

[LibFarmer]

12. +1000 nt

[customerserviceguy]

31. Exactly

Let's say that a country like India instituted a food stamp program. Chances are, it would not cover purchases of meat.

[Hortensis]

34. Good example. A few states where slaughtering and eating beef

are legal might then conceivably choose to cover it under a state program, or not.

[crazytown]

10. "minute issue"?

Wow.

[demmiblue]

13. Amazing, isn't it?

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. This.

[Ace Rothstein]

11. I can actually feel the pull to the right in this thread.

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. ...and this.

[KPN]

20. No kidding. The water looks placid, but if you dangle your legs in it

you can feel the current tugging. Keep in mind we got here via this kind of thinking.

[WoonTars]

25. No shit..

Frankly it's terrifying..."so what if one of our candidates favors further disadvantage for poor women, let's not forget he's OUR guy..."

But give it a few days and he'll plagiarize someone else as he tries to walk this one back as well...

This all feels soooooooo familiar...

[BannonsLiver]

28. What is familiar?

[Cha]

89. Hey Good News, WoonTars! Our Leading Candidate

has listened to his supporters and all the other Blowback.. and now does NOT support the Hyde Amendment!

Good on Joe Biden!

[George II]

16. If the republicans win, the status of the Hyde Amendment will be a moot point.

[WoonTars]

22. As it would be if Biden were elected. What's your point?

He's wrong for supporting it. Period.

[jberryhill]

54. Nonsense

Congress can repeal it by a veto-proof majority.

If Congress can't do that, then we are back to "what is the level of support" generally.

[George II]

81. No it wouldn't. He's been "supporting it" for 40 years, it wasn't an issue. Now it is?

[Cha]

90. I tweeted Cedric Richmond this morning...

I'm for Biden now.. but please tell him that he shouldn't be basing political decisions on "religion". Separation of Church and State. Thank you

.
When I came back after going out for a run I saw this tweet..

Link to tweet

So now he doesn't "support it".

[progressoid]

23. Apparently it's a moot point if Democrats get elected too.

Well, some Democrats.

[Politicub]

17. You had me until you started the self-righteous bit

We are discussing something that elicits strong feelings. Some threads are just more dramatic than others, and some folks are trying to disrupt. I’m pro contraception coverage, btw, and agree with you.

And I am learning from the discussion about the Hyde amendment. I know more about it’s origins, public opinion, and why it continues to dog Democrats. It’s okay if we hash this out here because there’s no where else to do it.

“Nothing to fear but fear itself” applies, right?

[KPN]

21. Yes, in so many ways right now.

[FakeNoose]

18. I hear you LibFarmer

As a smart man (or woman) once said, "There's more than one way to skin the cat."

Once we get a Democrat in the White House, and hopefully turn the Senate BLUE as well, then we can talk about what's red line and what isn't.

[Lordquinton]

61. Let's work to get a Dem that actually aligns with the Democratic platform at least

We have many, but Biden just went against it.

[George II]

87. Just about every one of our 20+ candidates do not "align" with the Democratic platform....

....on at least one issue. Can you name one that does align with the platform on each and every one?

[Scurrilous]

19. K&R

[DBoon]

27. Refusing to support Biden will not make abortion more available

It will only help ensure Trump is re-elected and that it will become less available

This is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"

[WoonTars]

30. Assuming facts not in evidence. Biden isn't the nominee.

Refusing to support Biden means you are free to support other, more electable candidates who are more woman-friendly.

[emmaverybo]

33. Biden has a proven record of supporting women. It was very difficult to pass VAWA. He has been

one of women’s most strong supporters in Washington.
Who is more electable?
Can you make that case?
Since Warren just misstated the facts in the Hyde amendment, and either did so knowingly, or out of unbelievable ignorance, I would not vote for her.

[WoonTars]

36. Ask Anita Hill how much support she got...

I'll wait till Joe plagiarizes someone else as he tries to walk back this unelectable poisiton he has...

[emmaverybo]

40. He did support her. Voted against Thomas, twice. Has always championed her credibility. Did not

take unfair shots at her personally which Repubs on committee did, while Thomas, in neat collusion with their playing racial politics with Dems, called the proceedings a “high tech lynching.” It is Biden who got her the hearing.
And while other Dems were scared to punch at Thomas, he did.
That hearing was never ever Biden vs, Hill. That it has become, in a deconstructive and politically motivated narrative, a recounting that pits Hill against Biden, is more than factually inaccurate, it is a willful misunderstanding, giving a pass to Thomas, Grassley, Heflin, Specter, Simpson, while vilifying Biden.
Yet, in all retellings, Biden has not once questioned Hill’s truthfulness. He has gone a step further to champion her courage.

[WoonTars]

42. So that's why he half-apologized, right?

'Cos he hadn't done anything wrong...

I do that all the time... apologize for shit i didn't do...

It's a character flaw...

[emmaverybo]

45. He apologized saying that the process was imperfect and that he might have gone

against legal advice not to call a reluctant witness as a hostile witness.
He has not and should not apologize for not supporting her. The process is always bad no matter who handles it.
Sex abuse complaints for which there is no criminal proceedings recourse should not be heard in
open session and debated on a partisan basis. They should be pursued as a part of a thorough background vetting into character with trained sex offense people in charge and not as trial-like processes.

[Cha]

92. Now you're just trying to smear Joe Biden..

how's that working out for you?

[loyalsister]

56. Like women who were unable to leave abusive partners

After welfare reform he supported left no safety net for families who relied on abuser's incomes. Punishing what happened only because support to end it was withdrawn is not as big of an accomplishment as he and many supporters think. Many women died before vawa could have any relevance because a lack of resources prevented them from leaving.

[BannonsLiver]

72. Ah the goalposts shift

It’s not really about the issues is it?

[loyalsister]

79. Only if the presumption is that women are irrelevant

Taking action that has harmed women and still taking a position that aggrevates more harm that will result from the recently passed abortion limits out of Missouri and Alabama is not something that can be negated with a law that was passed decades ago.

[BannonsLiver]

80. Only in your mind was Biden making that assumption.

Try having some perspective.

[loyalsister]

83. Actually it's his defenders

who have been accusing women (and men who care about us) of being single issue voters or purists when we speak out about policies and positions that harm us and our sisters and daughters.
To me there are more political issues related to women's autonomy than a single piece of legislation. Abortion happens to be one that matters a lot.
This is primary season and exactly the time to discover where candidates stand on issues and decide what is or isn't forgivable. Primaries are not just about winning the GE. It is also the time to support the candidate who best reflects the values we want a president to have.

[Lordquinton]

62. VAWA was signed back in 1994

His support of the Hyde amendment was literally yesterday.
If you're going to go back to the 90's for credibility, then you can't disqualify other things that happened back then too

[Demsrule86]

53. A different candidate... who will undoubtedly go down in horrible defeat and he/she will take

the house with them as well. We are a center left country...and must rebuild the blue wall or we lose 2024 too ....a candidate perceived as a centrist can win. Biden is progressive but appeals to moderates as well...Win win.

[Cha]

91. That's a false narrative.. Biden is absolutely "Women Friendly"

But, you'd have to actually look at his record to know that.

[Demit]

32. Try to remember that this is still primary season, please.

Biden hasn't won the nomination yet. This is the exact time to support or not support any of the candidates.

[tkmorris]

37. Actually I was thinking maybe we could just support a different nominee

[WoonTars]

44. What????!!! That's just crazy talk!!!

Haven't you heard? He's the most electable!! Joe's the ONE!!!

[Cha]

93. Joe Biden is leading in all the polls right now.. with POC

too and beating the Orange Psycho in Texas..

So, of course.. Word got out. Hope you can handle.

[Demsrule86]

47. No. Not with Biden beating Trump by double digits...healthcare will take care of the issue.

And it is a good reason for universal coverage...not MFA...insurance will cover reproductive/abortion issues

[WoonTars]

48. Lol!! In what universe??

He's not the only one "beating" Trump by big numbers you know...

[Demsrule86]

49. Yes he is the only one.

[emmaverybo]

75. Ha ha. Short and sweet. nt

[Demsrule86]

77. Some are determined that some other candidate could win. I wish it was so.

Trump is going to be tough to beat.

[emmaverybo]

51. Who is we? Maybe you should and those who share your feelings. Or do you mean we progressives

[Vidal]

35. Agree - we are eating our own

Democrats can be very critical and that is self defeating. We must have unity to prevail.

[tkmorris]

38. It's the primary

At this point we are IDENTIFYING our own.

Once we have a nominee feel free to argue there shouldn't be too much criticism.

[emmaverybo]

76. It never happens. Republicans will make common cause with Atilla the Hun. Not enough support

for Obama when he was president and now great nostalgia. Of course this all speaks well for the
independent thinking among Dems. But does not help us get a Dem elected.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

43. The problem is with a candidate that people say is the most progressive in the field

who supports the Hyde Amendment. It's 2019, Joe. Get on board.

[ehrnst]

68. Next thing you know, he'll be dissing all those groups like Planned Parenthood

and NARAL and EMILYs List as somehow corrupt for not supporting him!

THAT would be "not getting on board."

[BlueMTexpat]

46. Wild guess here ...

you are not a woman!

If this were my ONLY issue with Biden, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, it helps to reinforce what I have seen as a longtime pattern with him of going along to get along.

So long as there are much better alternatives - and there most certainly are - Biden will NOT be my primary choice.

[Demsrule86]

50. Nonsense...in my opinion. Joe is a good guy. You favor a different candidate

I suppose.

[emmaverybo]

57. I am a woman. I am strongly for Joe. Hyde amendment a moot point. nt

[BannonsLiver]

60. His critics here incorrectly assume every woman in the country shares their view on Hyde

Given that a majority of white women voted for Donnie it’s hard to take that seriously.

[Lordquinton]

63. Hyde amendment is in the Democratic party platform

Is the whole platform moot? Or just the parts your candidate comes out against?

[emmaverybo]

65. I am not purporting to support the 2016 platform. If Joe wins the primaries I am sure his

platform will include strong support for women. Only the Senate can repeal Hyde.

[BlueMTexpat]

94. Not a moot

point for me. And it is one of many about him that are not at all moot for me

He will NOT be my choice in the primaries. But I will support whoever wins the Dem nomination in the GE.

[shanny]

52. "minute issue"

[LibFarmer]

55. It is

When we are threatened with reversal of Roe, the Hyde amendment is indeed minute.

[Celerity]

70. ridiculous

Nothing 'middle of the road' (OR MINUTE) about leaving poor women & women of color unable to access abortion care when they need it. Especially right now. That position is unjust and discriminatory and endangers women and families.

I refuse to be gaslit on this.

[Celerity]

69. +10000

sickening

[treestar]

59. Bravo

Nothing is so either/or as these declarations. What about the VAWA? No credit for that if he has one odd position someone does not like. And something that has no effect. This is a time to be practical. There are more voters willing to be pro choice without funding it. Look at the brouhaha over birth control - Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh going on about paying for her to have a good time. This nation is puritanical to a large degree and finicky about money to a point of absurdity. What can we do ? It's not Sweden, where they would be practical enough to just fund both BC and abortion. But here, we have nutcases throughout the swing states.

We're close to saying goodbye to Roe v. Wade and now people are blowing up over Hyde, which will not matter at all if the SCOTUS upholds these bans.

[MH1]

74. I like Biden less for his position on Hyde, but I agree with your post - EXCEPT -

the Hyde amendment is NOT "some minute issue".

It's a really big issue. But it happens to be an issue where the country is not enough on our side for our position to be a winning position. I would rather get what we can get, than throw it ALL away by taking a stance that will lose us the election. But I would never call it a "minute" issue.

Okay that out of the way, thank you for your post.