The legislation, which states that “protections for access to abortion rights … should be supported," was blocked by Republicans who panned it as a “show vote.”
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation led by Democrats to revive the protections of Roe v. Wade in the wake of the Supreme Court eliminating the nationwide right to abortion.
The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster due to broad opposition from Republicans, who dismissed it as a political stunt.
The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act, introduced last month around the second anniversary of the court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” after the 2022 ruling “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in* Roe v. Wade …* should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”
Ah the old “political stunt” excuse thrown around EVERY TIME a politician does their job and engages in politics.
Everything is political. Likewise Everything is a political stunt.
Political stunts that remove the right to have an abortion are bad stunts. Political stunts that give the right to have an abortion are good stunts.
They get to have both arguments…
“If roe was so important then Congress should make a law.”
“You’re just making a law for show, so no you can’t have it.”
They’re all fucking scumbags.
To be fair, I remember a few short years ago Pelosi not letting minimum wage be voted on the floor because since she thought there was no way it would pass it was nothing more than a stunt and it would hurt the movement because people will get tired of voting for it. Why doesn’t that apply here or why was she lying to us then?
Democrats are spineless when it comes to things that may impact rich people even slightly and we’re just lucky no one found a way to make billions off of making abortion illegal.
Everything’s political, especially on the Hill. Doing or not doing something as a reaction to a “political stunt” is just a cover for not having a valid reason. People by and large want access to reproductive healthcare, just like they also by and large want access to enough money to address their needs of survival, but inevitably some politician recognizing that will result in others screaming “stunt” rather than explaining why the men in Washington get to choose what women do with their bodies and why we necessarily have to have a permanent vulnerable underclass.
Sounds like when it’s rich people money on the line those ‘men in Washington’ include top Democrats like Pelosi was.
now that abortion access in certain states have been limited just like with other rights that have devolved into a state’s rights issue people have to have gas, food, and lodging to access extra demographic rights
a PA box which has extra costs compared to a PO box is also required to access demographic rights as well as other hidden costs
so they did find a way
not to mention fundraising for and against it makes a dick ton of money
and it is making people criminals to access these demographics rights
the megacorp prison glomerate will make a shit load as well so the dissidents can have access to basic toiletries, communication with family and friends
next four years are going to suck either way and salt on the wound is Biden’s crimes bill will come back to haunt everyone combined with these latest assaults to our democracy
all adding up
The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster
I know the filibuster has been nerfed down to sending an email that says “I filibuster this”, but why don’t they actually make them work for it?
They’re too old now, they don’t have the energy to stand and talk for hours so they just “declare” the filibuster and go home for tapioca and Gold Bond.
All the more reason to make them work for it. If they can’t stand on and defend their principles, then they need to get out of the way and at least let things come up for a vote.
The filibuster should also require the person to stay on topic, so no reading “Green eggs and ham” to run out the clock unless the book is relevant to the legislation.
Or better yet, just ditch it because requiring a majority of two chambers and the presidents signature (or overwhelming support in both chambers) is a high enough bar to meet already.
Agreed!
Too old to do their job? American politicians?
The reasoning was that in the old style of filibuster no other senate business was possible. In theory was supposed to help the senate be more productive. In practice, it’s made the filibuster even more powerful. If a party was holding up all legislation and other functions of the senate by grandstanding for something stupid, that could hurt them politically, especially if it got bad enough that the military was being impacted or there were government shutdowns. So maybe they would think twice if it was worth a filibuster. Now they can kind of do it risk free. I think if you saw, government shutdown caused by Republicans trying to prevent abortion protections, well it’d be pretty unpopular with most Americans. And they’d pay for it in the polls. Or maybe not even do the filibuster in the first place.
That makes sense. Absolutely awful reasoning, but it makes sense.
Thanks!
Or, you know, fucking get rid of it
Damn you, Joe Manchin.
Congress? Work?
The ultimate oxymoron. I should have realized I answered my own question already lol.
They can do away with it by a simple majority vote, but republicans won’t when they have 50 because they use it all the time…
And when Dems have 50 they won’t because that’s moderates best excuse for never fucking doing anything.
why would they do anything?
they would not have anything to campaign on which includes donations
And this right here is why nothing is getting done. Go vote and not just every 4 years, but in midterms too.
The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster
Another reason they should have ditched the filibuster when they had a chance.
My question is why were 7 votes missing?
At 49 it fell short of the normal threshold too.
Not quite. You need a quorum of senators present, and more affirmative votes than negative.
Having said that, if this actually was a viable vote with 49 senators supporting, you would probably see more vote. Although, I suspect there are at least a few senate Republicans who would at least abstain to let it pass.
Never ends with these pieces of shit.
It would be neat if they got a number of votes based on their population…
That’s what the house of representatives… represents.
Though California should be something like 3 states by now.
If all states were represented like Wyoming is, there would be 573 reps, not 435.
I agree. The presumption is that us City folk wouldn’t properly protect rural interest. Which is fair. But doesn’t mean they deserve equal power
Rural people dont protect city interest either. Doesn’t seem like an excuse to have one person worth more than another. We all have to live here.
Rural people are a minority. If we went 100% “just do what the majority wants” that doesn’t ever work out for minorities. All minorities need protection, so there is sound intent in the design. It SHOULD work out that minority has a voice. But in practice it’s pretty crappy. It needs reworked. Starting with gerrymandering.
Proportional representation gives the minority a vioce. What we have now gives the minority absolute power and ‘tyrany of the minority’ is not better than ‘tyrany of the majority’. It was always about keeping landowners voices more powerful than other voices, and the side effect is less dense areas yield people who’s votes count more.
Senate.
In the Senate (where this vote happened), every state gets two people regardless of population.
House of reps you get a number of reps based on population
Yeah, that’s the point. This was blocked by Senate Republicans, you know, where the votes do not align with population.
That is because the Senate is like the UN or other groups of (nation) states where each member has the equivalent number of votes. There is no reason to have a second chamber of congress if both are based on population.
The Senate only exists to give more political power to assholes.
Nougat, I was replying to the comment that suggested that the number of votes should represent population. So I was replying that’s what the house of reps is for, not the Senate.
My first reaction was “Why wasn’t this done when the decision was first leaked? Why wait 2 years?”
The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act […] is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” […] “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade … should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”
That’s not the language of writing laws. It’s completely vague and unenforceable. It really is just a political stunt for an election year.
Why is it so hard to make a real law to actually do this!?
My first reaction was “Why wasn’t this done when the decision was first leaked? Why wait 2 years?”
They didn’t:
And here’s the text, which is notably more specific.
Furthermore, they also tried to pass a bill before the Dobbs ruling.
In fact, some of them have been trying since 1989.
Well, that makes me feel a little better.
Yeah the history of this is long and complicated. This piece goes into a lot more detail about the various attempts on both sides to put abortion into federal legislation (both for and against), including a review of the political situations that led to and resulted from each effort. One of the more interesting threads is this one:
After [Joe] Biden joined the Senate in 1973, he voted for a failed constitutional amendment that would have allowed states to overturn the court’s Roe ruling. In a Washingtonian magazine interview at the time, he said of Roe: “I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.” But times changed, and so did he. In a 2007 book, Biden said he had arrived at a “middle-of-the-road position on abortion.” In 2008, he described Roe as “close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours.” As Obama’s vice president, Biden said the government had no “right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their own body.”
The cultural center of gravity on this issue has changed dramatically since the 1970s. There were pro choice voices in both parties for many decades, but with very few exceptions those voices have migrated into the Democratic Party, which gives it a more unified and consistent stance on the issue.
voting on things is a “stunt”, sure. We can now cut aside the rhetorical crap and squarely know who is willing to shoot it down.
