Late-Term Abortion Debate Reveals a Rift Between Clinton and Sanders Bernie Sanders opposes all abortion restictions. Hillary Clinton's stance is murkier.

—By Pema Levy

| Fri Mar. 11, 2016 6:00 AM EST

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

On Thursday, my colleague Kevin Drum made the case that the antipathy many millennials feel toward Hillary Clinton may be a result of her inability to deliver a clear and straightforward statement of her positions on major policy areas. Whereas Bernie Sanders offers unequivocal yes-or-no answers in interviews and debates, Clinton often launches into meandering responses that give the impression—rightfully or not—that she is either hedging or being dishonest.

On one issue in particular, the difference between Sanders' unmistakable stance and Clinton's qualified one is becoming increasingly apparent—and it's an issue that's as close to a litmus test for Democratic voters as any: abortion.

During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders' stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop. Clinton's answer was murkier. She began her response to moderator Bret Baier with a broad defense of a woman's right to an abortion, mentioning the current Supreme Court case involving Texas' anti-abortion regulations and the continued Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood. But Baier persisted on the matter of late-term abortions, asking, "Just to be clear, there's no—without any exceptions?"

Clinton replied, "No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

In the exchange, Clinton seems to support limited bans on late-term abortions after a fetus is viable (about 24 weeks into a pregnancy). Her campaign has said nothing to contradict this. Asked to clarify Clinton's position, a campaign spokesperson responded in an email:

Politicians should not interfere with a woman's personal medical decisions, which should be left to a woman in consultation with her doctor. 

She also recognizes that Roe v. Wade provides that restrictions are constitutional later in pregnancy so long as there are clear exceptions for the life and health of the woman.

Clinton has consistently made clear her support for exceptions to any late-term abortion regulations, such as when the life or mental or physical health of the mother is at risk. She would also consider restrictions only after about the 24-week mark, when a fetus is considered viable, in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

But her stance leaves open the question of whether a woman's right to an abortion would be protected if a fetal abnormality is detected late in her pregnancy that does not threaten her life or health. This issue may not be the highest priority for abortion rights advocates who have battled more fundamental threats to abortion access in recent years. Only a small fraction of abortions take place after 20 weeks. But in a primary campaign that has seen the candidates and their backers parse the slightest differences in their platforms, the late-term abortion debate represents a meaningful divide between Clinton and Sanders on a high-profile issue.

Clinton's comments on Monday were largely in line with statements she has made over the years supporting bans, with exceptions, on late-term abortions. Last month, PolitiFact reviewed Clinton's statements on late-term abortions over the years and concluded, "Clinton does not believe that all abortion should be legal. Instead, she's said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life and health are in danger."

This would mean that despite being the nominee endorsed by the nation's leading pro-choice groups, she is more open to abortion regulation than Sanders.

The pro-choice groups that have rallied behind Clinton do not believe that her town hall remarks, or any other comments she has made, are a black mark on her record of support for abortion rights. In statements to Mother Jones, both NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund stressed that Clinton's broader comments spoke to their most pressing concerns, including 20-week abortion bans they believe violate the Constitution and the legal battle in Texas, where they say Republicans are trying to regulate abortion out of existence.

"Women in some parts of Texas must drive hundreds of miles or cross state lines to receive care, and in four states there is one health center that offers abortion," said Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and government affairs for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

"Hillary Clinton rightly understands these threats to access as the most urgent issue in the discussion around abortion."

"Hillary Clinton has been a steadfast champion for reproductive freedom, and on Monday she used her platform to proactively address the crisis in abortion access facing millions of Americans," said James Owens, a spokesman for NARAL. "She also reiterated her pledge to defend the constitutional protections for abortion rights enshrined in Roe and to stand up to the ongoing attempts to limit and constrain these rights."

Amanda Marcotte, who writes about feminism and politics, argues in Salon that Clinton and Sanders have essentially the same abortion stance. "The truth is that there's no real difference between Sanders and Clinton on abortion rights," she states. "Like Clinton, Sanders invokes Roe v Wade as 'the law of the land', suggesting that he has the same support that Clinton has for Roe's allowance for restrictions in the third trimester." But Sanders explicitly told Baier he would not support any restrictions on abortion—a more categorical stance than Clinton's.

Seeking more clarity on Clinton's position, Mother Jones followed up with her campaign, asking, "[I]f Congress passed a ban on post-viability abortions that included the exceptions that Clinton requires, including life and health of the mother, would she sign it?" The campaign didn't respond.

Pema Levy

Reporter

Pema Levy is a reporter in Mother Jones' DC bureau. E-mail her at plevy [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter

After Michigan Loss, Clinton Campaign Holds On to...Math

And stands by its attack on Sanders.

—By Pema Levy

| Wed Mar. 9, 2016 2:56 PM EST

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-michigan-auto-bailout-delegates

After a surprising loss in the Michigan primary on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton's campaign contends it is still on track to win the nomination, thanks to the delegate math. And her campaign strategists are not second-guessing the decisions that likely hurt her in Michigan—and could haunt her next week in three more significant Midwestern contests.

"From the beginning, we have approached this nomination as a battle for delegates," campaign manager Robby Mook said Wednesday on a conference call with reporters. "Last night really showed why that approach made sense."

The election results are not yet final, but Clinton did earn more delegates Tuesday night than Sanders, and Mook stressed that Clinton is ahead by more than 200 in the pledged delegate count. (The tally now is 745 for Clinton to 540 for Sanders, according to Real Clear Politics, with 2,382 needed for the nomination—Clinton claims 462 superdelegates to Sanders' 25.) "We are confident that we are nearing the point where our delegate lead will be effectively insurmountable," Mook said.

But Mook acknowledged that Clinton may lose other states before she secures the nomination. Looking ahead to March 15, when voters head to the polls in several delegate-rich, winner-take-all states, Mook continued to stress the math, though downplaying Clinton's lead in the polls. Polls show she is significantly ahead in Florida and North Carolina. But Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri could pose problems similar to what she encountered in Michigan. Those states are close demographically to Michigan and also have struggled with the loss of blue-collar jobs. Clinton is leading in the polls in those states, yet Mook advised treating those polls "with skepticism." He said each of these states would be competitive. But he noted he expects Clinton to win by large margins in Florida and North Carolina and argued that even if Clinton were to lose the three Midwestern states, she would not fall behind in the delegate count.

Mook rejected the idea that the two major issues that played a role in Michigan could hurt her in other Midwestern states: her past support for free trade deals, such as NAFTA, which have cost manufacturing jobs, and her claim that Sanders opposed the auto industry bailout. "I would put Secretary Clinton up against any candidate in this race on the issue of trade," Mook said. "She voted against bad trade deals in the Senate, she came out against the TPP, and she has been very clear that she will not support any trade deal that does not create jobs and raise wages here in the United States. So we feel confident about her position and her record on that particular issue." Still, Sanders won 57 to 30 percent among voters who cited trade as their top concern, according to CNN's exit poll.

Mook was similarly defiant regarding Clinton's auto bailout attack on Sanders. In last Sunday's debate, Clinton accused Sanders of not supporting the auto industry rescue, pointing to the Wall Street bailout that was also used to shore up automakers. Sanders defended himself with radio ads in the closing two days of the race, and his campaign decried the attack as a distortion of Sanders' record. It certainly didn't help win the race for Clinton.

Yet Mook stood by the attack and said the campaign would stick with it. "That is an important distinction between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders," he said. "We think it's important that voters know that information."

Mook continued: "Her point all along was that you can't just be with the auto industry when it's convenient—that leaders, especially presidents, face tough choices, and when the auto industry really needed Sen. Sanders, he wasn't there."

In the fall of 2008, Sanders voted in favor of a bailout for the auto industry that ultimately did not pass. Subsequently, President George W. Bush tapped Wall Street bailout funds to aid car companies. Sanders voted against releasing more of this money in January 2009, a small portion of which was earmarked for Detroit.

Pema Levy

Reporter

Pema Levy is a reporter in Mother Jones' DC bureau. E-mail her at plevy [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter

Hillary Clinton Suggested Breaking Up the Big Banks Won’t End Racism and Sexism. What Truth Is She Disavowing?

[...]

Obviously, no one ever promised a piece of legislation would “end” hate and injustice. Anyone even notionally sincere about battling the prejudices and cognitive dissonances that oligarchs and overlords have forever promulgated to divide and conquer humanity understands that “racism” and “sexism” are not forces you can arrest with a pen. 

Then there are the banks, the biggest and rottenest of which have been with us for more than two centuries. To want to see them curtailed is to have absorbed more than enough history to understand that such things don’t happen “tomorrow.” 

When I finally caved and read the full speech, I found a veritable orgy of straw men, each catering to some crucial segment of the Democratic coalition. It wasn’t just racism and sexism that would persist in a landscape of smaller banks, according to Hillary Clinton. “Gerrymandering and redistricting” would also persist, as would discrimination against immigrants and gays.

Something about the line just screamed “Bill.” Not shit-eating-grin President Bill Clinton at the height of his virility/virulence, but the Clinton of today who is occasionally given to weirdly bitter rants that are simultaneously nonsensical and illuminating, like a warped decoder ring for understanding how the Democratic Party could maintain its monopoly on self-righteous rhetoric while selling short the New Deal and Great Society constituencies that got out the vote all those years: Just remind Democratic voters that Republicans want to outlaw affirmative action and abortion and quarantine everyone diagnosed with AIDS.

The thing is, we were never dumb enough to sign on to this gutted, soulless, leveraged-buyout version of the Democratic platform. Bill Clinton eked out a White House win with only 43 percent of the popular vote. His triumphant job performance as president is a fiction in which Democrats have been inculcated because his surrogates have so effectively marginalized anyone who dares acknowledge history.

But when the going gets tough, as it conspicuously has, Hillary (like Obama in 2009, alas) falls back on what worked for Bill, the old New Dem coalition strategy: getting the black community leaders and abortion lobby to get out the vote, the bank lobby to pay for the ad buys and the eternal GOP majority to prevent anything from transpiring that might alienate the bank lobbyists. 

Today, as in 1992, this strategy only works by sacrificing a thing that Hillary now maligns as eggheaded “economic theory” but what Sanders supporters see as coherence.

If it felt a bit hyperbolic to identify Hillary’s true nemesis as “coherence,” well, it wasn’t. The Clintonists don’t want the electorate to make sense of the world—or to link cause and effect.

If they did, they might begin to see breaking up massive unaccountable money syndicates as a vital step toward achieving racial tolerance and gender equality.

At some point between the financial crisis of 2008 and the rise of Occupy in 2011, Americans began to understand that predatory lending was the cornerstone of modern finance. Usurious interest rates, extortionate fees and vicious cycles of ever-inflating indebtedness were a phenomenon that united black retirees in Detroit with Mexican day laborers in Hollister, Calif.; underemployed Vassar grads with underemployed University of Phoenix grads; the evaporating coffers of Jefferson County, Ala., and Harvard’s $36 billion endowment. The mechanics and fine print might differ case to case, but the business model was identical, needing two critical ingredients to thrive: a culture efficient at dehumanizing victims, and legal impunity.

First, at Washington Mutual—picked off for pennies on the dollar in 2008 by TBTF bank JPMorgan—subprime mortgage salesmen who didn’t sell enough predatory negative-amortization mortgages were assigned “trainers” whose first words were, “Do not feel sorry for ‘these’ people.” At Wells Fargo, where mortgage executives called minorities “mud people” and “niggers,” salesmen were directed to solicit new customers at African-American churches. Sexual harassment was indisputably rampant in the industry. “Mortgage sluts” peopled a 2008 Business Week cover story. Is there a more vivid embodiment of rape culture than the photos of the 2010 Halloween party held by staffers of the Steven J. Baum foreclosure mill?

Second, no major financial institution is as singly responsible for the “mainstreaming” of predatory lending as Citigroup. No other institution has employed as many veterans of the Clinton administration. Merely listing the relevant names could fill the better part of a book, but here are three: Peter Orszag, Jack Lew and Michael Froman. By 2007, Citi’s balance sheet was the biggest on Wall Street—when you included all its off-the-books assets, in any case—and in 2008 Citi became the recipient of the single biggest bailout.

If any corporate monstrosity was worthy of a breakup, it was Citi.

Celebrated analyst Meredith Whitney said so, FDIC chairman Sheila Bair said so, TARP overseer Elizabeth Warren said so and former Citi exec Sallie Krawcheck said as much after she was fired by (serial sex-discrimination lawsuit defendant) Vikram Pandit.

No one listened. Warren and Bair were marginalized—dismissed for failure to be seen as “team players” by the Clinton/Citi alums who infested the Obama White House. Nevertheless, a lot of powerful men came around, including Larry Summers and then (unbelievably) former Citi CEOs Sandy Weill and John Reed, both of whom wrote op-eds arguing that Glass-Steagall needed to be reinstated and their old bank broken up.

Hillary thinks otherwise—that we have not yet reached the hypothetical in which “they deserve it.” Could that be because Citi, in its current and apparently invincible state, is the second biggest donor to her campaign?

Reference:

see remarks by Moe Tkacik at

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18962/break-up-banks-end-racism-and-sexism