Just six weeks into his presidential campaign, Joe Biden is running as the Democrat to beat, charting a distinct path through the primary states, taking positions that may rile the party base and working with a single goal in mind: not being lumped in with the rest of the field.

While most Democrats crowd an Iowa dinner this weekend, he won’t be on the campaign trail. While most Democrats tout their support of abortion rights, Biden is offering a more nuanced, middle-ground position. And while most Democrats are preparing to battle one another, Biden is focused on President Donald Trump.

Biden’s moves suggest a candidate looking beyond the Democratic primary to the general election, laser-focused on issues that could shore him up with swing voters in key battleground states even if it spurs consternation from some Democrats now. At the moment, the strategy seems to be working as Biden enjoys a sizable lead in most early polls. But that could change with the first presidential debate of the season just weeks away.

“You are still running for the Democratic Party nomination, and you have to respect where the party is … and avoid pitfalls,” said Karen Finney, a key adviser in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, who navigated a fraught relationship with Democrats’ left flank to win the nomination but went on to lose the election. “It’s a very fine line he’s trying to walk.”

There are fresh signs of the peril he faces atop the field.

In a span of 24 hours this week, a staffer appeared to cut short a question-and-answer session with New Hampshire voters after the candidate called China “xenophobic,” suggesting the campaign remains anxious about Biden’s tendency to go off script. Aides admitted the campaign published a climate policy proposal without properly sourcing some material, a sign of a potential lack of discipline that sank Biden’s previous White House bids.

And Biden’s defense of his abortion views enraged fellow Democrats and left him uncomfortably close to Trump, whose campaign happily noted the president also opposes federal money supporting abortion.

More broadly, Biden risks contending with the same air of inevitability that Clinton confronted in 2016, magnifying every misstep and turning some voters against her.

“There are just places where he is out of step with the party,” Finney observed, citing his middle ground on abortion. “The question becomes whether there’s an assumption by this campaign that parts of the base might not like various positions but because people want to win, they’ll be willing to look past it.”

Biden’s Democratic competitors have been reluctant to attack publicly. Even as they disagreed with Biden’s abortion views on Wednesday, they generally avoided referring to him by name.

In private, however, rival campaigns are eager to complain that Biden hides from scrutiny. He’s among the only top-tier candidates yet to appear in a cable news town hall, and in contrast with many of his opponents, he rarely takes questions from groups of reporters after his campaign appearances.

Some of Biden’s top-tier opponents acknowledge they fear voter backlash should they engage the popular Biden more directly. They expect to debate policy differences, but most want to avoid the kind of scorched-earth attacks that fueled Trump’s rise during the 2016 Republican primary.

Only groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — which backs Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — have called Biden out aggressively. The group this week tweeted a picture of Biden’s schedule for June that features 10 days of campaigning; several days are limited to invitation-only fundraisers.

“You can hide for a few weeks during the primary, but you can’t hide from public engagement during the general election against Trump,” said PCCC co-founder Adam Green.

At Biden headquarters, aides don’t deny a front-runner’s approach, but they dispute any characterization that the former vice president isn’t engaging voters. Days when he’s not on the campaign trail, they say, are devoted to meetings with policy advisers and campaign aides. Indeed, Biden has unveiled two comprehensive policy outlines (education and climate) before the 40-day mark of his campaign, a faster clip than the gaggle of candidates who launched their bids in January and February.

And they say Biden made it to all four early voting states faster than most of his top-tier rivals.

Biden isn’t skipping large-scale Democratic events altogether. On Thursday, he’ll be in Atlanta at a Democratic National Committee event focused on minorities and voting rights. Later in June, he’ll spend two days at the South Carolina state party convention, an important stop ahead of the South’s first primary and the first nominating contest to feature a large black contingent.

And allowing a press pool at fundraisers — something his opponents aren’t doing systematically — means any misstep is captured, even if not on camera. He’s attended house parties and lunchtime meet-and-greets and taken questions in New Hampshire and Iowa, even if not as much as barnstormers like Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

Scott Brennan, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman, said Biden’s strength in early polls allows him to “get a pass” from some of the criticism for now. But he warned that Biden should be aware of a nebulous measure: “Whether voters feel like you’re accessible.”

Then-Sen. Barack Obama skipped Iowa’s Hall of Fame dinner in 2007 — the same event Biden will miss this weekend. But Obama went on to win Iowa, largely because of his lengthy sessions answering questions from voters in more personal settings.

In New Hampshire on Tuesday, voters offered a mixed assessment.

Cynthia Tomai, a 51-year-old who is self-employed, said Biden has to play “catch up” to other candidates. “Would I like to see a little bit more aggressiveness in him?” Tomai said. “Yeah, I would. I think he does need to change his message a little bit.”

Lloyd Murray, a 67-year-old military veteran and business owner, said Biden’s front-runner approach is smart.

“I’m scared for him,” Murray said. “He’s known to make [gaffes] in the past. I want him to play it safe. He’s in the lead.”

 
…

Just six weeks into his presidential campaign, Joe Biden is running as the Democrat to beat, charting a distinct path through the primary states, taking positions that may rile the party base and working with a single goal in mind: not being lumped in with the rest of the field.

While most Democrats crowd an Iowa dinner this weekend, he won’t be on the campaign trail. While most Democrats tout their support of abortion rights, Biden is offering a more nuanced, middle-ground position. And while most Democrats are preparing to battle one another, Biden is focused on President Donald Trump.

Biden’s moves suggest a candidate looking beyond the Democratic primary to the general election, laser-focused on issues that could shore him up with swing voters in key battleground states even if it spurs consternation from some Democrats now. At the moment, the strategy seems to be working as Biden enjoys a sizable lead in most early polls. But that could change with the first presidential debate of the season just weeks away.

“You are still running for the Democratic Party nomination, and you have to respect where the party is … and avoid pitfalls,” said Karen Finney, a key adviser in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, who navigated a fraught relationship with Democrats’ left flank to win the nomination but went on to lose the election. “It’s a very fine line he’s trying to walk.”

There are fresh signs of the peril he faces atop the field.

In a span of 24 hours this week, a staffer appeared to cut short a question-and-answer session with New Hampshire voters after the candidate called China “xenophobic,” suggesting the campaign remains anxious about Biden’s tendency to go off script. Aides admitted the campaign published a climate policy proposal without properly sourcing some material, a sign of a potential lack of discipline that sank Biden’s previous White House bids.

And Biden’s defense of his abortion views enraged fellow Democrats and left him uncomfortably close to Trump, whose campaign happily noted the president also opposes federal money supporting abortion.

More broadly, Biden risks contending with the same air of inevitability that Clinton confronted in 2016, magnifying every misstep and turning some voters against her.

“There are just places where he is out of step with the party,” Finney observed, citing his middle ground on abortion. “The question becomes whether there’s an assumption by this campaign that parts of the base might not like various positions but because people want to win, they’ll be willing to look past it.”

Biden’s Democratic competitors have been reluctant to attack publicly. Even as they disagreed with Biden’s abortion views on Wednesday, they generally avoided referring to him by name.

In private, however, rival campaigns are eager to complain that Biden hides from scrutiny. He’s among the only top-tier candidates yet to appear in a cable news town hall, and in contrast with many of his opponents, he rarely takes questions from groups of reporters after his campaign appearances.

Some of Biden’s top-tier opponents acknowledge they fear voter backlash should they engage the popular Biden more directly. They expect to debate policy differences, but most want to avoid the kind of scorched-earth attacks that fueled Trump’s rise during the 2016 Republican primary.

Only groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — which backs Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — have called Biden out aggressively. The group this week tweeted a picture of Biden’s schedule for June that features 10 days of campaigning; several days are limited to invitation-only fundraisers.

“You can hide for a few weeks during the primary, but you can’t hide from public engagement during the general election against Trump,” said PCCC co-founder Adam Green.

At Biden headquarters, aides don’t deny a front-runner’s approach, but they dispute any characterization that the former vice president isn’t engaging voters. Days when he’s not on the campaign trail, they say, are devoted to meetings with policy advisers and campaign aides. Indeed, Biden has unveiled two comprehensive policy outlines (education and climate) before the 40-day mark of his campaign, a faster clip than the gaggle of candidates who launched their bids in January and February.

And they say Biden made it to all four early voting states faster than most of his top-tier rivals.

Biden isn’t skipping large-scale Democratic events altogether. On Thursday, he’ll be in Atlanta at a Democratic National Committee event focused on minorities and voting rights. Later in June, he’ll spend two days at the South Carolina state party convention, an important stop ahead of the South’s first primary and the first nominating contest to feature a large black contingent.

And allowing a press pool at fundraisers — something his opponents aren’t doing systematically — means any misstep is captured, even if not on camera. He’s attended house parties and lunchtime meet-and-greets and taken questions in New Hampshire and Iowa, even if not as much as barnstormers like Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

Scott Brennan, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman, said Biden’s strength in early polls allows him to “get a pass” from some of the criticism for now. But he warned that Biden should be aware of a nebulous measure: “Whether voters feel like you’re accessible.”

Then-Sen. Barack Obama skipped Iowa’s Hall of Fame dinner in 2007 — the same event Biden will miss this weekend. But Obama went on to win Iowa, largely because of his lengthy sessions answering questions from voters in more personal settings.

In New Hampshire on Tuesday, voters offered a mixed assessment.

Cynthia Tomai, a 51-year-old who is self-employed, said Biden has to play “catch up” to other candidates. “Would I like to see a little bit more aggressiveness in him?” Tomai said. “Yeah, I would. I think he does need to change his message a little bit.”

Lloyd Murray, a 67-year-old military veteran and business owner, said Biden’s front-runner approach is smart.

“I’m scared for him,” Murray said. “He’s known to make [gaffes] in the past. I want him to play it safe. He’s in the lead.”

 
…

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Mexico as “random dart throwing” that lacks a coherent strategy.

Trump unexpectedly told Mexico last week to take a harder line on curbing illegal immigration or face 5% tariffs on all its exports to the United States, rising to as much as 25% later in the year. On Tuesday, Trump said he expected to impose the tariffs as of Monday.

“Trump’s random dart throwing ain’t helping anybody,” Warren, a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, told reporters after a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana.

Moments earlier, before a crowd of about 600 in the town with a large manufacturing sector, Warren assailed companies that are moving production abroad. While that echoed Trump’s criticism, she faulted his approach.

“Lets be clear — tariff policy by tweet does not work,” Warren said. “Randomly raising tariffs on a handful of goods with no coherent policy and doing it nation by nation makes no sense at all.”

Warren is one of more than 20 Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump in the November 2020 election.

Mexican officials will seek to persuade the White House in talks hosted by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday that their government has done enough to stem immigration and avoid looming tariffs. The tariff fight merges two of Trump’s biggest campaign promises, on immigration and fair trade.

“Nobody goes into battle by themselves when they can be stronger by having allies in it,” Warren said, calling for a “coherent trade policy.”

Other Candidates Weigh In

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is also running to be a Democratic presidential nominee, criticized Trump for creating “chaos” by creating the tariffs and promising more.

“That’s the kind of chaos he likes,” Klobuchar said in an appearance on CNN on Tuesday. “And I just think that’s not how you embark on international diplomacy with one of our best allies.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, another Democratic presidential hopeful, had a similar criticism.

“This president has no plan and no ability to have a thoughtful approach towards trade or the economy,” Gillibrand said on Monday in a town hall on Fox News. “Because if he wanted to reduce the trade deficit, he’s only grown it.”
…

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Mexico as “random dart throwing” that lacks a coherent strategy.

Trump unexpectedly told Mexico last week to take a harder line on curbing illegal immigration or face 5% tariffs on all its exports to the United States, rising to as much as 25% later in the year. On Tuesday, Trump said he expected to impose the tariffs as of Monday.

“Trump’s random dart throwing ain’t helping anybody,” Warren, a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, told reporters after a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana.

Moments earlier, before a crowd of about 600 in the town with a large manufacturing sector, Warren assailed companies that are moving production abroad. While that echoed Trump’s criticism, she faulted his approach.

“Lets be clear — tariff policy by tweet does not work,” Warren said. “Randomly raising tariffs on a handful of goods with no coherent policy and doing it nation by nation makes no sense at all.”

Warren is one of more than 20 Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump in the November 2020 election.

Mexican officials will seek to persuade the White House in talks hosted by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday that their government has done enough to stem immigration and avoid looming tariffs. The tariff fight merges two of Trump’s biggest campaign promises, on immigration and fair trade.

“Nobody goes into battle by themselves when they can be stronger by having allies in it,” Warren said, calling for a “coherent trade policy.”

Other Candidates Weigh In

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is also running to be a Democratic presidential nominee, criticized Trump for creating “chaos” by creating the tariffs and promising more.

“That’s the kind of chaos he likes,” Klobuchar said in an appearance on CNN on Tuesday. “And I just think that’s not how you embark on international diplomacy with one of our best allies.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, another Democratic presidential hopeful, had a similar criticism.

“This president has no plan and no ability to have a thoughtful approach towards trade or the economy,” Gillibrand said on Monday in a town hall on Fox News. “Because if he wanted to reduce the trade deficit, he’s only grown it.”
…

Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Wednesday told Walmart shareholders and top executives that the world’s largest retailer should boost the “starvation”-level wages it pays its workers and stop fueling income inequality.

Speaking at Walmart’s shareholder meeting, the U.S. senator said: “Despite the incredible wealth of Walmart’s owners” the company pays “starvation wages.”

He presented a shareholder proposal asking the company to give hourly employees a seat on its board and raise base wages to $15 an hour.

Walmart’s “wages are so low, many of these employees are forced to rely on government programs like food stamps, Medicaid and public housing in order to survive,” Sanders said.

“The American people are so tired of subsidizing the greed of some of the largest corporations in the United States,” he added.

Sanders had three minutes to present and make comments. His remarks at the meeting drew attention to his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination as well as to the drive for higher hourly U.S. wages, one of his signature issues.

The proposal, filed by Walmart worker Carolyn Davis, was buried at the end of the annual proxy filing. It had no chance of passing since a majority of shares are owned by the family of the founder, the late Sam Walton, and the retailer has asked shareholders to vote against it.

Sanders also complained that “Walmart’s CEO is making a thousand times more than the average Walmart employee.”

Walmart’s CEO received a 423.6 million pay package last year. The ratio compared with that of the median associate was 1,076 to 1.

Protesters gathered outside the meeting, many from the labor group “United for Respect” which has pushed for a worker presence on Walmart’s board. They held signs supporting Sanders 2020 presidential campaign and calling for a $15 per hour U.S. minimum wage.

“What do we want? 15. When do we want it? Now!” the protesters chanted as Sanders briefly addressed workers and the media in a parking lot outside the meeting.

Final results of the vote were expected later in the afternoon.

Walmart has raised its minimum wage twice since 2016 to $11 an hour, still lower than the $15 an hour that rival Amazon.com Inc pays employees. Retailers Target and Costco also pay higher rates than Walmart.

Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon said Walmart has raised wages in the United States by 50 percent in the past four years and continues to increase wages on a market-by-market basis to hire and retain talent. He also urged Congress to raise the federal minimum wage, calling the current minimum of $7.25 an hour “too low.”

“We are not perfect, but together we are learning, we are listening and changing,” he said.

Walmart has said it pays an average of $17.50 an hour to its hourly employees, including benefits.

Last year, Sanders introduced the Stop Walmart Act, a bill that would prevent large companies from buying back stock unless they pay all employees at least $15 an hour.

The U.S. Senator has also backed campaigns to push Amazon and Disney  to raise their minimum wages, an issue that has found support with all Democratic candidates running for the presidential nomination.

Walmart, which employs nearly 1.5 million Americans and is the largest U.S. private-sector employer, drew sharp criticism from labor groups and unions when it changed the format of its annual meeting last year, splitting it into two separate events.

The business meeting at which Sanders spoke is now held a few days before the big shareholder event, which draws thousands of employees. This year and the year before, the company rushed through shareholder proposals at the business meeting, which had a fraction of the attendees, in less than 30 minutes.
…

Joe Biden is under fire from his Democratic presidential rivals and women’s rights advocates for his defense of a decades-old prohibition on federal money paying for abortions.

Most Democratic White House hopefuls reflect their party’s latest platform calling for the outright repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which traces back to a compromise made when Biden was a young Delaware senator in the years after the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion nationwide.

But a Biden campaign spokesman said Wednesday that the former vice president supports the measure, though he “would be open to repealing it” if abortion access is further threatened by restrictive state laws, like those recently passed in Georgia and Alabama.

The hedging prompted intraparty outcry, with top Democrats reaffirming their commitment to abortion rights and scrapping the Hyde Amendment. They generally avoided mentioning Biden by name, but the pushback marked the first significant instance in which virtually the entire crowded 2020 field united to critique Biden, who has emerged as an early Democratic front-runner .

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has campaigned as an unapologetic feminist, tweeted “reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats.” On Capitol Hill, California Sen. Kamala Harris told The Associated Press she was “absolutely opposed to the idea that a woman is not going to have an ability to exercise her choice based on how much money she’s got.”

Campaigning in Indiana, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, “This isn’t about the politics, this is about what’s right. The Hyde Amendment should not be the law.”

Other presidential candidates, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, also voiced support for ending the Hyde Amendment.

Biden’s abortion views came under scrutiny recently after video emerged of a conversation between him and a South Carolina activist that appeared to suggest he backed the Hyde Amendment’s repeal. His campaign said Biden thought the activist was asking about the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibits U.S. foreign aid to non-American organizations that provide abortion services.

The campaign said Biden supports ending the Mexico City rule but backs the Hyde Amendment for now. That would change, it said, “if avenues for women to access their protected rights under Roe v. Wade are closed.”

Biden, a Roman Catholic, has long been a supporter of the once-bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It bars the use of federal funds for abortion other than in cases of incest, rape or to save the life of the mother.

That position aligns the former vice president with the man he’s trying to unseat next year, President Donald Trump. Campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Wednesday that “President Trump opposes taxpayer funding of abortions and supports the Hyde Amendment.”

Biden has said in the past he agrees with his church’s opposition to abortion personally but doesn’t think the government should impose his views on others. After the Supreme Court decided the Roe v. Wade case, Biden originally worried the decision “went too far,” though he later became a staunch defender of it.

“I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years,” he wrote in his 2007 book “Promises to Keep.” `’I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.”

As a party, Democrats didn’t expressly state opposition to the Hyde Amendment until 2016. The Democratic platform that year also introduced a specific mention of Planned Parenthood, as it was adopted amid a rash of Republican-run state legislatures trying to strip Medicaid financing for the women’s health giant whose services include abortion and abortion referrals.

Abortion rights supporters also condemned the Hyde Amendment on Wednesday.

“As abortion access is being restricted and pushed out of reach in states around the country, it is unacceptable for a candidate to support policies that further restrict abortion,” Kelley Robinson, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Biden’s position “further endangers women and families already facing enormous hurdles and creates two classes of rights for people in this country, which is inherently undemocratic.”

Biden ally and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in an interview, “I respect Joe. I just disagree.” She said it wouldn’t affect her support, but she planned to raise the issue with him: “Oh, yeah. We’ll talk about it. No question.”

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono went further, saying she was “very disappointed” in Biden’s position and urged Democratic presidential candidates to “come together” in full support of abortion rights.

“This is why there are going to be a lot of women and others who are going to be asking Biden, `Where exactly are you on the issue of a woman’s right to choose?”’ Hirono said.

 
…

Joe Biden is under fire from his Democratic presidential rivals and women’s rights advocates for his defense of a decades-old prohibition on federal money paying for abortions.

Most Democratic White House hopefuls reflect their party’s latest platform calling for the outright repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which traces back to a compromise made when Biden was a young Delaware senator in the years after the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion nationwide.

But a Biden campaign spokesman said Wednesday that the former vice president supports the measure, though he “would be open to repealing it” if abortion access is further threatened by restrictive state laws, like those recently passed in Georgia and Alabama.

The hedging prompted intraparty outcry, with top Democrats reaffirming their commitment to abortion rights and scrapping the Hyde Amendment. They generally avoided mentioning Biden by name, but the pushback marked the first significant instance in which virtually the entire crowded 2020 field united to critique Biden, who has emerged as an early Democratic front-runner .

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has campaigned as an unapologetic feminist, tweeted “reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats.” On Capitol Hill, California Sen. Kamala Harris told The Associated Press she was “absolutely opposed to the idea that a woman is not going to have an ability to exercise her choice based on how much money she’s got.”

Campaigning in Indiana, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, “This isn’t about the politics, this is about what’s right. The Hyde Amendment should not be the law.”

Other presidential candidates, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, also voiced support for ending the Hyde Amendment.

Biden’s abortion views came under scrutiny recently after video emerged of a conversation between him and a South Carolina activist that appeared to suggest he backed the Hyde Amendment’s repeal. His campaign said Biden thought the activist was asking about the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibits U.S. foreign aid to non-American organizations that provide abortion services.

The campaign said Biden supports ending the Mexico City rule but backs the Hyde Amendment for now. That would change, it said, “if avenues for women to access their protected rights under Roe v. Wade are closed.”

Biden, a Roman Catholic, has long been a supporter of the once-bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It bars the use of federal funds for abortion other than in cases of incest, rape or to save the life of the mother.

That position aligns the former vice president with the man he’s trying to unseat next year, President Donald Trump. Campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Wednesday that “President Trump opposes taxpayer funding of abortions and supports the Hyde Amendment.”

Biden has said in the past he agrees with his church’s opposition to abortion personally but doesn’t think the government should impose his views on others. After the Supreme Court decided the Roe v. Wade case, Biden originally worried the decision “went too far,” though he later became a staunch defender of it.

“I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years,” he wrote in his 2007 book “Promises to Keep.” `’I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.”

As a party, Democrats didn’t expressly state opposition to the Hyde Amendment until 2016. The Democratic platform that year also introduced a specific mention of Planned Parenthood, as it was adopted amid a rash of Republican-run state legislatures trying to strip Medicaid financing for the women’s health giant whose services include abortion and abortion referrals.

Abortion rights supporters also condemned the Hyde Amendment on Wednesday.

“As abortion access is being restricted and pushed out of reach in states around the country, it is unacceptable for a candidate to support policies that further restrict abortion,” Kelley Robinson, executive director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said Biden’s position “further endangers women and families already facing enormous hurdles and creates two classes of rights for people in this country, which is inherently undemocratic.”

Biden ally and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in an interview, “I respect Joe. I just disagree.” She said it wouldn’t affect her support, but she planned to raise the issue with him: “Oh, yeah. We’ll talk about it. No question.”

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono went further, saying she was “very disappointed” in Biden’s position and urged Democratic presidential candidates to “come together” in full support of abortion rights.

“This is why there are going to be a lot of women and others who are going to be asking Biden, `Where exactly are you on the issue of a woman’s right to choose?”’ Hirono said.

 
…

Beto (BET’-oh) O’Rourke has unveiled a voting rights proposal he says can increase voter registration by 50 million and raise nationwide voter turnout to 65%.

He’s seeking to ensure 35 million new voters cast ballots in 2024’s presidential race.

The former Texas congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate announced Wednesday he’d champion legislation ensuring automatic voter registration, including preregistration starting at age 16 and same-day registration. He’d make Election Day a holiday, extend early voting and strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

O’Rourke promises to direct the Justice Department to combat strict voter ID laws around the country and keep some state officials from “purging” voter rolls. He’d back a constitutional amendment imposing 12-year House and Senate term limits and 18-year limits for Supreme Court justices.

The Pew Research Center says voter turnout was 61% in 2016.
…

In a courtroom packed with environmental activists, federal judges wrestled Tuesday with whether climate change violates the constitutional rights of young people who have sued the U.S. government over the use of fossil fuels.

A Justice Department attorney warned three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowing the case to go to trial would be unprecedented and open the doors to more lawsuits.

“This case would have earth-shattering consequences,” Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark said. 

He called the lawsuit “a direct attack on the separation of powers” and said the 21 young people who filed it want the courts to direct U.S. energy policy, instead of government officials.

The young people are pressing the government to stop promoting the use of fossil fuels, saying sources like coal and oil cause climate change and violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty and property. 

The judges seemed to feel the enormity of the case, which the plaintiffs’ lawyer compared in scope to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that mandated desegregation of schools in the 1950s.

If the case moves forward, the judiciary would be “dealing with different branches of government and telling them what to do,” said Judge Andrew Hurwitz, instead of issuing court orders telling officials to stop doing something deemed unconstitutional.

The dire threat to people, particularly the young, demands such action, said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the plaintiffs. 

“When our great-grandchildren look back on the 21st century, they will see that government-sanctioned climate destruction was the constitutional issue of this century,” Olson told the judges.

​The lawsuit asks the courts to declare federal energy policy that contributes to climate change unconstitutional, order the government to quickly phase out carbon dioxide emissions to a certain level by 2100 and mandate a national climate recovery plan. 

The Obama and Trump administrations have tried to get the case dismissed since it was filed in Oregon in 2015.

“It’s just really disappointing to see the lengths that they go to – to not only not let us get the remedy that we’re seeking, but not even let us have the chance to prove our facts or present our case at trial,” said Nathan Baring, a 19-year-old from Fairbanks, Alaska, who joined the lawsuit when he was 15.

Baring said a social media campaign in the early days featured the hashtag #KidsvsGov, which was changed to #YouthvsGov as they got older.

“I think eventually it’s just going to have to be #AdultsvsGov,’’ Baring said, laughing.

As the case drags on, sea ice that protects coastal Alaska communities from fierce storms is forming later in the year, leaving those villages vulnerable, he said. 

The young people argue that government officials have known for more than 50 years that carbon pollution from fossil fuels causes climate change and that policies promoting oil and gas deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the young people didn’t find any “historical basis for a fundamental right to a stable climate system or any other constitutional right related to the environment.”

The lawsuit says the young are more vulnerable to serious effects from climate change in the future. The American Academy of Pediatrics, 14 other health organizations and nearly 80 scientists and doctors agreed in a brief filed with the appeals court.

They pointed out that the World Health Organization estimates 88% of the global health burden of climate change falls on children younger than 5.

The case has become a focal point for many youth activists, and the courtroom in Portland was packed. 

If the 9th Circuit judges decide the lawsuit can move forward, it would go before the U.S. District Court in Eugene, where the case was filed. The appeals court judges will rule later.
…

In a courtroom packed with environmental activists, federal judges wrestled Tuesday with whether climate change violates the constitutional rights of young people who have sued the U.S. government over the use of fossil fuels.

A Justice Department attorney warned three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowing the case to go to trial would be unprecedented and open the doors to more lawsuits.

“This case would have earth-shattering consequences,” Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark said. 

He called the lawsuit “a direct attack on the separation of powers” and said the 21 young people who filed it want the courts to direct U.S. energy policy, instead of government officials.

The young people are pressing the government to stop promoting the use of fossil fuels, saying sources like coal and oil cause climate change and violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty and property. 

The judges seemed to feel the enormity of the case, which the plaintiffs’ lawyer compared in scope to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling that mandated desegregation of schools in the 1950s.

If the case moves forward, the judiciary would be “dealing with different branches of government and telling them what to do,” said Judge Andrew Hurwitz, instead of issuing court orders telling officials to stop doing something deemed unconstitutional.

The dire threat to people, particularly the young, demands such action, said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the plaintiffs. 

“When our great-grandchildren look back on the 21st century, they will see that government-sanctioned climate destruction was the constitutional issue of this century,” Olson told the judges.

​The lawsuit asks the courts to declare federal energy policy that contributes to climate change unconstitutional, order the government to quickly phase out carbon dioxide emissions to a certain level by 2100 and mandate a national climate recovery plan. 

The Obama and Trump administrations have tried to get the case dismissed since it was filed in Oregon in 2015.

“It’s just really disappointing to see the lengths that they go to – to not only not let us get the remedy that we’re seeking, but not even let us have the chance to prove our facts or present our case at trial,” said Nathan Baring, a 19-year-old from Fairbanks, Alaska, who joined the lawsuit when he was 15.

Baring said a social media campaign in the early days featured the hashtag #KidsvsGov, which was changed to #YouthvsGov as they got older.

“I think eventually it’s just going to have to be #AdultsvsGov,’’ Baring said, laughing.

As the case drags on, sea ice that protects coastal Alaska communities from fierce storms is forming later in the year, leaving those villages vulnerable, he said. 

The young people argue that government officials have known for more than 50 years that carbon pollution from fossil fuels causes climate change and that policies promoting oil and gas deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the young people didn’t find any “historical basis for a fundamental right to a stable climate system or any other constitutional right related to the environment.”

The lawsuit says the young are more vulnerable to serious effects from climate change in the future. The American Academy of Pediatrics, 14 other health organizations and nearly 80 scientists and doctors agreed in a brief filed with the appeals court.

They pointed out that the World Health Organization estimates 88% of the global health burden of climate change falls on children younger than 5.

The case has become a focal point for many youth activists, and the courtroom in Portland was packed. 

If the 9th Circuit judges decide the lawsuit can move forward, it would go before the U.S. District Court in Eugene, where the case was filed. The appeals court judges will rule later.
…

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is pitching a $5 trillion-plus climate proposal that he says would lead the U.S. to net zero emission of carbon pollution by 2050.

The former vice president calls for $1.7 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, with the rest of the investments coming from the private sector. Biden proposes covering the taxpayer costs by repealing the corporate tax cuts that President Donald Trump signed in 2017, while eliminating existing subsidies to the fossil fuel companies.

Biden’s plan — a mix of tax incentives, federal spending, new regulation and more aggressive foreign policy on climate issues — comes as he pushes back on rivals’ assertions that his environmental agenda isn’t bold enough. Climate activists largely praised his pitch Tuesday, although some said the Democrats’ 2020 front-runner still hasn’t gone far enough to challenge the fossil fuel industry.

His proposal calls the Green New Deal pushed by some Democrats on Capitol Hill “a crucial outline” but stops short of some of its timelines for weaning the U.S. economy off power from fossil fuels, even as he promises a “clean energy revolution” nationwide and internationally.

“I will lead America and the world, not only to confront the crisis in front us but to seize the opportunity it presents,” Biden says in a campaign video posted online, warning that failure to act threatens “the livability of our planet” and will accelerate natural disasters that are “already happening.”

Biden also joined many of his Democratic primary opponents in pledging not to accept campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and promising to keep the U.S. in the United Nations climate agreement signed in 2015 while he was vice president under President Barack Obama. Trump, who calls climate science a “hoax,” has pledged to withdraw from that accord.

Reaction to plan

But the release of Biden’s plan was not without controversy. The campaign was forced to amend the proposal because a handful of passages did not credit some of its sources. The Biden campaign said “several citations” had been “inadvertently left out.”

Biden’s plan is similar in size and scope to what former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke has proposed. Its total price tag falls short of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s pitch for $3 trillion in federal spending over a decade and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s $2 trillion green manufacturing plan, also unveiled Tuesday.

Inslee took advantage of the contrasts, saying at a Michigan campaign stop that Biden’s “proposals really lack teeth and they lack ambition that is necessary to defeat the climate crisis.” He added, “We don’t have 30 years to get this job done. We’ve got to start acting now.”

League of Conservation Voters lobbying executive Tiernan Sittenfeld was more complimentary, applauding Biden for “committing to ambitious goals.” Greenpeace, which recently released a scorecard ranking Biden second to last among Democratic candidates, called the outline “a critical step forward,” but spokesman John Noel added that if Biden “wants to become a leader on climate, he needs to outline a plan to phase out fossil fuels.”

At the pro-Green New Deal Sunrise Movement, executive director Varshini Prakash called Biden’s plan “a good start.” Prakash also gave climate activists credit for pushing Biden to the left following their outcry after a recent news report asserted Biden was looking for a “middle ground” on climate. Biden disputed the report at the time.

As president, Biden says he’d start by reversing many actions of the Trump administration, then turn to necessary congressional action and executive branch regulation, while using U.S. political and economic muscle to limit emissions from other nations.

Lost jobs

He acknowledges that such an overhaul would affect existing U.S. energy workers — coal miners and power plant operators especially. He calls first for pension and benefit protections for all such workers and promises an “unprecedented investment” in retraining and redevelopment in those communities.

Biden recognizes the “environmental justice” movement that highlights how pollution disproportionately affects poorer, mostly nonwhite communities. He pledges a more aggressive Environmental Protection Agency, clean drinking water for all Americans and a focus on minority communities for initial rounds of federal clean energy spending.

He doesn’t offer specific spending amounts for those priorities.

Still, Biden’s dual focus on coal towns and nonwhite communities reflects political lessons from 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s loss. Clinton drew ire in coal country when she said as part of a more sweeping statement on energy development that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” 

Transportation, construction

Biden also envisions expanding the nation’s railways, theoretically reducing demand for car and airline travel.

Among his ideas for automobiles, Biden calls for fuel economy standards “beyond” the Obama administration’s goal of about 54 miles (87 kilometers) per gallon (3.8 liters). The Trump administration has rolled that back, saying the regulation would increase auto prices. Biden also pitches expanded tax credits for purchases of electric vehicles, along with 500,000 more public charging stations nationwide by the end of 2030.

He calls for reducing carbon output from the nation’s buildings by more than 50 percent by 2035, through new construction and tax breaks for retrofitting existing commercial and residential properties. The Energy Department would be tasked with tightening efficiency standards for household appliances and equipment.

Like O’Rourke, Biden mentions nuclear energy as a source the federal government should boost with tax incentives. That could put him at odds with some activists on the left who cast nuclear energy as too dangerous.

On the international front, Biden calls out China as the world’s biggest coal polluter and says he’d hinge all future bilateral deals with Beijing on carbon reductions. Biden also urges an international alliance that would help other nations afford low-carbon development and pitches a global moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling.
…

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is pitching a $5 trillion-plus climate proposal that he says would lead the U.S. to net zero emission of carbon pollution by 2050.

The former vice president calls for $1.7 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, with the rest of the investments coming from the private sector. Biden proposes covering the taxpayer costs by repealing the corporate tax cuts that President Donald Trump signed in 2017, while eliminating existing subsidies to the fossil fuel companies.

Biden’s plan — a mix of tax incentives, federal spending, new regulation and more aggressive foreign policy on climate issues — comes as he pushes back on rivals’ assertions that his environmental agenda isn’t bold enough. Climate activists largely praised his pitch Tuesday, although some said the Democrats’ 2020 front-runner still hasn’t gone far enough to challenge the fossil fuel industry.

His proposal calls the Green New Deal pushed by some Democrats on Capitol Hill “a crucial outline” but stops short of some of its timelines for weaning the U.S. economy off power from fossil fuels, even as he promises a “clean energy revolution” nationwide and internationally.

“I will lead America and the world, not only to confront the crisis in front us but to seize the opportunity it presents,” Biden says in a campaign video posted online, warning that failure to act threatens “the livability of our planet” and will accelerate natural disasters that are “already happening.”

Biden also joined many of his Democratic primary opponents in pledging not to accept campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and promising to keep the U.S. in the United Nations climate agreement signed in 2015 while he was vice president under President Barack Obama. Trump, who calls climate science a “hoax,” has pledged to withdraw from that accord.

Reaction to plan

But the release of Biden’s plan was not without controversy. The campaign was forced to amend the proposal because a handful of passages did not credit some of its sources. The Biden campaign said “several citations” had been “inadvertently left out.”

Biden’s plan is similar in size and scope to what former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke has proposed. Its total price tag falls short of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s pitch for $3 trillion in federal spending over a decade and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s $2 trillion green manufacturing plan, also unveiled Tuesday.

Inslee took advantage of the contrasts, saying at a Michigan campaign stop that Biden’s “proposals really lack teeth and they lack ambition that is necessary to defeat the climate crisis.” He added, “We don’t have 30 years to get this job done. We’ve got to start acting now.”

League of Conservation Voters lobbying executive Tiernan Sittenfeld was more complimentary, applauding Biden for “committing to ambitious goals.” Greenpeace, which recently released a scorecard ranking Biden second to last among Democratic candidates, called the outline “a critical step forward,” but spokesman John Noel added that if Biden “wants to become a leader on climate, he needs to outline a plan to phase out fossil fuels.”

At the pro-Green New Deal Sunrise Movement, executive director Varshini Prakash called Biden’s plan “a good start.” Prakash also gave climate activists credit for pushing Biden to the left following their outcry after a recent news report asserted Biden was looking for a “middle ground” on climate. Biden disputed the report at the time.

As president, Biden says he’d start by reversing many actions of the Trump administration, then turn to necessary congressional action and executive branch regulation, while using U.S. political and economic muscle to limit emissions from other nations.

Lost jobs

He acknowledges that such an overhaul would affect existing U.S. energy workers — coal miners and power plant operators especially. He calls first for pension and benefit protections for all such workers and promises an “unprecedented investment” in retraining and redevelopment in those communities.

Biden recognizes the “environmental justice” movement that highlights how pollution disproportionately affects poorer, mostly nonwhite communities. He pledges a more aggressive Environmental Protection Agency, clean drinking water for all Americans and a focus on minority communities for initial rounds of federal clean energy spending.

He doesn’t offer specific spending amounts for those priorities.

Still, Biden’s dual focus on coal towns and nonwhite communities reflects political lessons from 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s loss. Clinton drew ire in coal country when she said as part of a more sweeping statement on energy development that “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” 

Transportation, construction

Biden also envisions expanding the nation’s railways, theoretically reducing demand for car and airline travel.

Among his ideas for automobiles, Biden calls for fuel economy standards “beyond” the Obama administration’s goal of about 54 miles (87 kilometers) per gallon (3.8 liters). The Trump administration has rolled that back, saying the regulation would increase auto prices. Biden also pitches expanded tax credits for purchases of electric vehicles, along with 500,000 more public charging stations nationwide by the end of 2030.

He calls for reducing carbon output from the nation’s buildings by more than 50 percent by 2035, through new construction and tax breaks for retrofitting existing commercial and residential properties. The Energy Department would be tasked with tightening efficiency standards for household appliances and equipment.

Like O’Rourke, Biden mentions nuclear energy as a source the federal government should boost with tax incentives. That could put him at odds with some activists on the left who cast nuclear energy as too dangerous.

On the international front, Biden calls out China as the world’s biggest coal polluter and says he’d hinge all future bilateral deals with Beijing on carbon reductions. Biden also urges an international alliance that would help other nations afford low-carbon development and pitches a global moratorium on Arctic offshore drilling.
…