Hillary Clinton discovers something new
A recent statement from Hillary Clinton would sound almost poignant – if she hadn’t pushed so hard for supposedly “safe”, middle-of-the-road positions, including on abortion rights.
The phrase “better late than never” comes to mind:
The former first lady issued a dire warning in the interview, conducted in February, claiming that Democrats spent decades in a state of denial that abortion rights — which had been enshrined for generations under Roe v. Wade — could be revoked. While in that state, Clinton said the anti-abortion movement was able to chip away at the legal precedent until it was too late.
“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” Clinton said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.”
“It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side,” she added.1 [my emphasis]
Gosh, if only she had been in a position over the last 3 ½ decades to somehow influence the way her side operated!
But she’s right – now that the fight for abortion rights is back to a mid-1970s state.
She was the Secretary of State in the Obama-Biden Administration, which had pledged to cofidy the abortion rights that had been enshrined in Constitutional law for five decades since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But they didn’t do it. Didn’t even try.
"The Dems refused to Codify Roe even when they had the power to," wrote screenwriter Thomas Cunningham. "RBG refused to retire when Obama could pick her replacement. Biden promised he's codify Roe. Didn't. Trump win is only 1 part. The other is Dem failure."
He was referring to the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who passed away in late 2020 and who was succeeded by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump. Many progressives had called on Ginsburg to retire and allow Obama to appoint her successor.
"You could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009, but you didn't because 'abortion rights weren't the priority,'" tweeted Ash Sarkar, contributing editor at progressive outlet Novara Media.2 (2)
Molly Moorhead wrote in 2012, when Obama still had over four years that he would be in office (after winning that year’s election, of course):
After initially vowing to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, President Barack Obama quickly said it's not his "highest legislative priority."
That was in March 2009. Since then, it has scarcely been mentioned. A version of the bill was last introduced in Congress in 2007, and no new bill has appeared since.
We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to assess the progress on this issue.
"The protection of Roe v. Wade in federal law remains a long-term priority for NARAL Pro-Choice America and the pro-choice community. Unfortunately, the composition of Congress (including the first two years of President Obama's term) did not include enough pro-choice votes to pass legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act," NARAL said in a statement.3
Yes, Hillary is right. Democrats actually should fight for their own side. And she herself has shown that it is possible to do that when the Democrats put their minds to it. But they played a different game on abortion rights. It became just another item on their list of issues in fundraising pitches.
It’s also worth noting that somehow in the two years where Biden had Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, he didn’t get it codified, either. Doesn’t seem to have really tried.4
Bernie Sanders was pushing for it 2022, when there was still time to do it5:
Irwin, Lauren (2024): Hillary Clinton gives dire warning on abortion: ‘We could have done more to fight’. The HIll 05/25/2024. <https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4685823-hillary-clinton-dire-warning-abortion-rights-new-york-times-interview/> (Accessed: 2024-26-05).
Roche, Darragh (2022): Barack Obama Blasted for Not Codifying Roe v. Wade: 'Dem Failure'. Newsweek 06/25/2022. <https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).
Moorhead, Molly (2012): Nothing to sign; bill has fizzled. Politifact 06/01/20212. <https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/501/sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act/> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).
Saric, Ivana (2022): Biden believes Congress must codify Roe v. Wade, top aide says Axios 11/13/2022. <https://www.axios.com/2022/11/14/biden-abortion-congress-codify-roe-wade-democrats> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).
We Must Codify Roe v. Wade. Senator Bernie Sanders YouTube channel 05/11/2024. (Accessed: 2024-04-06).
I was just thinking about this the other day. One reason I suspect they can't get there is they are rubbing elbows with these people constantly--as students at the ivies, as lawyers, etc.
You have to do it to get anywhere. Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have gotten a job and tenure at Harvard Law School without being 100% committed to both sides. She gave a speech to the Federalist Society even later in her career.
Obama's absurd idea he could work with the right came, he himself said, from the amity of working on Law Review with Republicans.
These antechambers of power in university or government or corporate jobs is like a club that trains people to conform with its rules, and deeply internalize them.
They also cannot believe that a Harvard or Yale graduate or whatnot can be a vile person.
And one is trained to think like this at the very universities the right is always squawking about as bastions of leftism. They choose the kind of people who mold themselves to their circumstances, who will be resume activists but never rock the boat, People who will never want to be TRULY outside.
Only true outsiders can ever be effective, which is why our politics has become more closed and insular. None of these people can ever be effective.
Don't think that's entirely fair to Biden. It always needed 10 Republican senators https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1562/work-codify-roe-v-wade/