Politifact: Bernie Sanders oversimplifies record on Hyde Amendment

[ehrnst]

A reader wrote us to suggest we check into Sanders’ assertion that "I have consistently voted against the Hyde Amendment."

When we looked, we found that the story is more complicated than Sanders indicated.
.............................................................................

When we reviewed appropriations votes going back to 1999, however, we found numerous occasions in which Sanders backed the final version of a spending bill that funded the Department of Health and Human Services, all of which included language enacting the Hyde Amendment.

As a senator, Sanders voted for such bills for fiscal years 2016, 2014, 2013, 2010, 2008, 2007, and 2006, when the bill passed by unanimous consent by all senators. As a House member, he voted for such bills for fiscal years 2005, 2002, 2001, and 1999.
.............................................................................

Sanders tweeted, "I have consistently voted against the Hyde Amendment."

Sanders’ comments suggest a purity on the issue that isn’t possible for senators who want to vote in favor of major spending bills to fund the government. He has a point that when the Hyde Amendment has come up as a stand-alone measure, he has voted with the pro-abortion-rights side. However, Sanders left out that he has voted numerous times for broad spending bills that included a version of the Hyde Amendment.

The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jun/11/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-oversimplifies-record-hyde-amendmen/

[MineralMan]

1. The same can be said of virtually every candidate who has served in Congress.

That's why the Hyde Amendment thing is not going to be an effective campaign issue. It's just not.

[ehrnst]

2. Not all candidates are claiming this kind of purity on the issue, however. (nt)

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Very, very true.

[marylandblue]

5. It's also why Senators have a harder time defending themselves than governors.

Senators have to hold their noses and vote for a lot of things. Long after everyone forgets the reason, they are on record as "for" something they are against.

Governors get to blame their legislatures or can veto if it will hurt their future ambitions.

[George II]

3. He admitted a few days ago that he's voted for legislation that contains the Hyde Amendment:

Did Bernie Sanders ‘consistently’ vote against the Hyde Amendment?

“If we believe that a woman has the constitutional right to control her own body, that right must apply to ALL women, including low-income women. That is why I have consistently voted against the Hyde Amendment and why, as president, I would eliminate it.”

— Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in a tweet, June 6, 2019

The Hyde Amendment has sharply limited federal funding for abortions since 1976. But it’s back in the news again after former vice president Joe Biden suddenly reversed his position and said he now supports taxpayer funding for abortions.

As Biden came under fire for his stance — before he reversed himself — one of his top rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), tweeted that he had “consistently voted against the Hyde Amendment.”

But as CNN’s Dana Bash pointed out in an interview with Sanders on June 9, the senator has voted for bills that contain the Hyde Amendment. “Well, look, sometimes, you — in a large bill, you have to vote for things you don’t like,” Sanders replied. “But I think my record as being literally 100 percent pro-choice is absolutely correct.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/11/did-bernie-sanders-consistently-vote-against-hyde-amendment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.748b0515075c

[ehrnst]

6. But still tried to get around what he said in the tweet...

“But I think my record as being literally 100 percent pro-choice is absolutely correct.”

Didn't acknowledge that his tweet wasn't accurate, because there are nuances. He simply tried to excuse his votes that didn't fit his tweet.

Other candidates get trashed as "waffling" or "backpedaling" or "evolving" when they talk about the neccessary nuance in legislation.

With Sanders, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of HIS nuanced votes, unless he's confronted on a black and white statement he made about a complicated issue.

When he does it, it's because it's "neccessary." For others, it's "compromised."

[HerbChestnut]

4. Same with most, if not all, Democratic representatives in Congress.

It's an unfortunate reality in our governmental system that our reps have to vote on these huge overarching bills that are really made up of multiple smaller bills. They can't vote for some of the bill, they either have to vote 'Yea' or 'Nay' for the whole thing. The crime bill from the 1990s is a great example of this (the one Joe Biden authored, btw). Bernie voted 'Yea' for that bill because he felt large sections of it were beneficial to society, but he spoke out strongly against many of the incarceration aspects that would end up targeting African Americans.

[ehrnst]

7. But who else claims the purity he does on this issue? Or most complex issues?

His tweet was clear, it was not as simple and cut and dried as he make it out to be.

He didn't acknowledge that, he just tried to excuse it.

He often oversimplifies when it comes to his 'purity' on a complex issue. It seems that he believes that he is the standard one "ethics" and "purity" so whatever he does or supports is therefore, by definition, ethically and politically spotless.

[HerbChestnut]

9. I just don't think it's a fair criticism.

The article states that any time a bill came up to vote that directly supported the Hyde Amendment he voted against it. The only time he "supported" it was by voting for those spending bills along with most other Democrats. I should add that some people tried to criticize Elizabeth Warren for the same thing and were laughed out of the forum.

[ehrnst]

12. Not 'a fair criticism' to say that he claimed 'purity' on the issue with that tweet?

I should add that some people tried to criticize Elizabeth Warren for the same thing and were laughed out of the forum.

When did Warren make that kind of oversimplified, less than factual claim of purity? Can you post a link to that thread?

Did Warren then try to excuse her actual voting record as not being relevant to her claim?

[HerbChestnut]

14. No, it's not fair

Some people on this forum tried to criticize Elizabeth Warren for her 'Yea' votes on spending bills that "supported" the Hyde Amendment even though she's repeatedly spoken out against the law.

[ehrnst]

15. Yes, it is. He claimed purity on a voting record when that wasn't the case.

So, Warren didn't claim purity she didn't have, did she?

Otherwise you would have posted a link to that thread.

You're trying to compare people criticizing Warren for her votes to people criticizing Sanders for his claim of a voting record purity he didn't have.

That's where you are not getting the difference, and not making a case for why a very different critique of Sanders is not fair. And actually, it's a "well, what about Warren?" and "what about other people on DU?" whataboutery.


But I'd still like to see the thread you're talking about. I think it would be interesting to see if the criticism of Warren was whataboutery for another candidate. Do you have a link?

[HerbChestnut]

16. I understand the difference

I just disagree that it's a fair criticism. It's the type of criticism you would hear from news pundits trying to play 'Gotcha'. As for the Warren thing, I never meant people were criticizing her for claiming "purity" and made that clear with my follow up comment.

[ehrnst]

17. If you understood the difference, why did you point to the thread on Warren

(which you haven't linked to yet) as an example of another candidate being 'unfairly criticized' for their votes concerning the Hyde Amendment - as a reason that criticizing Sanders for claiming purity is an "unfair criticism?"

No, it's not fair

Some people on this forum tried to criticize Elizabeth Warren for her 'Yea' votes on spending bills that "supported" the Hyde Amendment even though she's repeatedly spoken out against the law.

So you were equating the the actual criticism of Sanders in the OP with dU criticism of Warren. Which means you didn't get the difference when you made the comparison.

The article states that any time a bill came up to vote that directly supported the Hyde Amendment he voted against it. The only time he "supported" it was by voting for those spending bills along with most other Democrats. I should add that some people tried to criticize Elizabeth Warren for the same thing and were laughed out of the forum.

You also went on about other bills Sanders voted for, as if his record, and not his claim about his record was the point of the OP....

Same with most, if not all, Democratic representatives in Congress.

It's an unfortunate reality in our governmental system that our reps have to vote on these huge overarching bills that are really made up of multiple smaller bills.

If you misunderstood what Sanders was actually being criticized for in the OP, and then understood your mistake after it was explained, I get that. You thought that Sanders was being criticized for his votes, and you wanted to defend him, but did so before reading the full OP.

But you're not saying that. You're now claiming that you think it was unfair because it was a "gotcha" comment?

My pointing all this out a "gotcha" question, too, I suppose?

Clarifying a Senator's actual voting record when they claim something else about it isn't "gotcha" journalism - it's Journalism. It's the job of a journalist to hold a politician to the facts. "Others on DU" rightfully howl when a Politician they don't like isn't pressed on their previous contradictory statements by a journalist who is interviewing them.

It's just not tolerated when Sanders is held to the same standards on his statements as other candidates. It's viewed as "unfair" for some reason when he is pressed on his statements.

Still waiting on a link to that thread you said was on DU where Warren was being called out on her voting record re: the Hyde amendment.

[George II]

19. A year later, when the debate over penalties for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine began...

Democrats felt the disparity should be eliminated by lowering the penalty for crack cocaine to that of powder cocaine. Sanders, however, wanted to INCREASE the powder cocaine penalty, essentially advocating for more "mass incarceration".

From the Congressional Record, Sanders said:

“This Congressman thinks that drugs are a scourge on America, and I strongly believe we must fight cocaine use in any form. We should be addressing the fairness issue by raising the punishment for powder cocaine, not lowering the sentence for crack offenses. I am deeply disturbed that this was not given as an option today.”

[Peacetrain]

8. Bernie Sanders is not going to get elected.. he is just not

I was at an event last night on climate.. and was with a very committed Sanders supporter from 2016.. and he will not vote for him again.. and I have seen this time and time again.. the only thing that Sen Sanders and company can do this time.. (and I do not think it is so much Sanders as his staff) is kneecap the eventual Democratic nominee..The Democratic Party is just not a fit for him..

[ehrnst]

11. His choices of senior staff indicate his view of the Democratic party.

They have no problem directly bashing the Democratic party, or anyone who doesn't agree with Sanders, and that means that he doesn't have to take the heat for doing so. He can simply be silent to support what they say.

He can send Nina Turner out to chastise a group of black women who call him out. He knows that if he himself did that, it would be taken very differently.

There are times that I wonder if he really isn't in this to win the nomination, but for other reasons, such as you mention.

Running as a third party candidate would not give him the opportunity - monetarily, especially - to achieve those other goals.

[Me.]

13. Quite

Grain of salt with him, I find, is the best policy

[LibFarmer]

18. Our POTUS does the same thing

misstate, amplify, minimize the negative and overstate the positive in order to appease the devotees.

[SouthernProgressive]

20. Sanders is floundering.

I think most of us expected he would be trying to expand outside of his base at this point. Instead he is desperately trying to hold his own base. They are the only people who buy into comments like these. They are the Pakman group and detached from reality.