March 25, 2010
Are you starting to get the picture?
Yesterday’s press briefing concerning the Hyde Amendment and the signing of the executive order.
Gibbs gets asked whether the executive order was just ceremonial. And a correspondent actually asks about barry’s stance on the Hyde Amendment as a candidate (against it). Of course, it’s meaningless being asked after the bill was signed when barry’s stance was known back in 2007.
Re stance on Hyde Amendment [emphasis added]:
Q Thanks. In 2007, during the campaign, the President said that he does not support the Hyde Amendment and the federal government should not intrude onto a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or terminate her pregnancy. So my question today is, as he signs this executive order, which will further enshrine the Hyde Amendment, how does he feel about that?
MR. GIBBS: David, I would have to see what — I don’t know the comment that you’re referring to.
Q He was opposed to the Hyde Amendment.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’d have to —
Q It was in a questionnaire, a pro-choice questionnaire.
Q It was in a questionnaire —
MR. GIBBS: And I’ll have somebody — I haven’t — you can just assume I haven’t looked at a questionnaire in quite some time.
[but he should know barry’s stances on everything and should have to state it on the record. As usual, he ducks the question and, as usual, the press lets him.]
Q But you stipulate that he opposed the Hyde Amendment, correct?
MR. GIBBS: I would stipulate that the President believes in a woman’s right to choose.
Think Rep Stupak knew of barry’s stance?
And the disingenuous Nancy Keegan at NARAL?
Here’s the exchange about the farce that is Executive Order 13535.
Q Does the President think that this executive order is necessary? Does he think that there was ambiguity in the law? Or does he think that there wasn’t any ambiguity but this was just done because people like Bart Stupak wanted it done?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say the President believed that the law — the President has always believed that health care reform should be about that, not about other issues. The President did not, in health care reform, believe we did change the status quo and believes that this reiterates that it’s not changed.
[Just admitted there was no “Change!”]
Q So he doesn’t think it’s necessary, it’s just reiterating what is already in the law?
MR. GIBBS: I mean, it’s an executive order so this isn’t — I mean, it’s not a frivolous thing, Jake.
Q No, of course not. But does this executive order change anything that the law already didn’t do?
MR. GIBBS: It ensures that health care, the law the President signed yesterday, maintains the status quo of the federal law prohibiting the federal use — the use of federal dollars for abortion.
Q So it is needed, that the law was not clear enough?
MR. GIBBS: The President reiterated that in the executive order.
Q So all he’s doing is repeating what’s in the law?
Q So it’s just — I mean, you can’t have it both ways. Either the executive order is needed to clarify something that’s not-
MR. GIBBS: No, I — again, I would refer you to the executive order and the statements that we made about this over the weekend.
Q I read the executive order, and it says that’s a reiteration of what already exists.
MR. GIBBS: Well, there you go.
Q So it’s not necessary?
Q Not legally necessary?
MR. GIBBS: We reiterated —
Q Might have been necessary for other reasons, but it’s not legally necessary.
MR. GIBBS: No, we reiterated the status quo, and we’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.
Q — comfortable for a legal purpose?
MR. GIBBS: We’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.
Q Doesn’t it diminish the whole purpose of a presidential — of an executive order if all he’s doing is reiterating what’s already in the law? Why would he do that?
MR. GIBBS: No. No. We don’t see that as diminishing —
And that was it.
The answer was?