Sanders on bills with Hyde Amendment: 'Sometimes ... you have to vote for things you don't like'

[ehrnst]

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday defended his past votes for legislation containing a provision prohibiting federal funding for most abortions, while reiterating his support for abortion rights.

Sanders was asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” about his support for bills containing the Hyde Amendment, which bans using Medicaid funds for abortions unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy arises from rape or incest.

“Well, look, sometimes in a large bill you have to vote for things you don't like,” Sanders said. “But I think my record as being literally 100 percent 'pro-choice' is absolutely correct.”
....................................................................................

Democratic presidential contenders’ stances on the Hyde Amendment have been under scrutiny since former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign said Biden supported the provision. But after criticism from abortions rights groups and other candidates, Biden quickly reversed himself, saying a Republican "assault" on abortion rights had compelled him to change his mind.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518

[MineralMan]

1. He's right. Most, if not all, of our Democratic primary candidates

who have served in the House or Senate have voted for bills that contain Hyde Amendment language, and for the very reason Senator Sanders states. Almost always, such language is part of major spending bills, which must pass if a government shutdown is to be avoided. So, that's why that language gets put into them. Attempts to remove it fail, again and again, because federal funding for abortions continues to be unpopular with constituencies around the country.

Getting rid of that language, once and for all, is a worthy goal. It should be there in those bills. But, Democrats we all respect have voted for bills containing it, because not enough House members and Senators want it removed. The remainder of those bills is important enough, though, to convince legislators to vote for them.

So, Bernie's right about this, even though the Hyde Amendment language is wrong and should be removed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Exactly. Sometimes total political stalemate is simply not an option, and sometimes a stalemate...

...can only be broken through a painful compromise. The question then always becomes which compromises must be made and whether a different compromise would be viable and preferred instead. Ultimately of course we have to build our political strength so that fewer and less noxious compromises must be considered.

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly.

Sometimes we forget about that necessity, because we're not legislators having to deal with a complex set of issues all at the same time. It's easy to forget that from outside of the arena.

[Hortensis]

7. Yes. REPRESENTATIVE democracy requires reaching agreements

that not just sometimes but typically fail to meet some standards or goals of the involved parties.

And, of course, as long as it's this way voting records will be hypocritically weaponized by candidates whose own records are very similar, and by controversy-trolling media.

Btw, speaking of doing away with language, that may be possible in 2021, and I'm sure some Republicans would wish it could be sooner. The RW assaults on women's reproductive rights have caused electoral support for them, already strong, to leap. Additional support is coming from people doing a 180 when polled. Nothing like threats coming home to voters themselves to make them real.

[LibFarmer]

4. This is as clear as night and day

Nevertheless, the outrage on DU against Biden was spectacular, albeit phony.

[SharonClark]

5. Not phony at all.

The big difference is that Biden had advocated for the Hyde Amendment and didn't denounce it until last week.
I believe Biden is fully pro-choice but when Biden supporters say it was phony outrage and try to make false comparisons, then I have to speak out.

[LibFarmer]

6. I rest my case nt

[Hortensis]

10. I'm afraid LibFarmer's right. One standard for all?

As a first basic but hugely necessary cut for honesty?

Let's face it, we don't doubt the passionate sincerity of Sanders' contempt for Democrats. He's reiterated it publicly for 50 years. But to get reelected for 30 years Sanders has voted with Democrats 96% of the time. So when he calls Democrats really just the same as Republicans, "Tweedledum and Tweedledee," he's smearing himself. Because his 30 years of pretending to be morally superior in congress has never undone even one of his votes with the Democratic caucus. "It's the vote, Stupid."

Btw, two btws: That all that legislation was written and passed by the Democratic caucus (+1) does not in itself make any of it intrinsically immoral -- at least not to anyone but Sanders by the doctrine of original Democratic sin or something, and of course to those attracted to him by this attitude. And, that other 4% of Sanders' votes? A large part of that was voting with the Republicans to tend his donors, including the gun industry. Something some, but notably not all, of them need to do.

Now, about this vote that both Sanders and Biden made...

[Maru Kitteh]

8. It's okay when Bernie does it.

[KitSileya]

9. Too bad Senator Sanders didn't have the same attitude towards the multitude of Russia Sanction bills

He voted no on. I know he refused to vote for one Russian sanction bill because it was bundled with sanctions on Iran - never mind that he himself had voted to bundle them together previously. It shows a decided lack of foresight - and insight - now.

[ehrnst]

11. Indeed. (nt)

[sheshe2]

14. +1

[Cha]

12. KR

uh huh..

Thanks, ehrnst..

[tishaLA]

13. Magnitsky Act?

[sheshe2]

15. K&R