Manchin is a NO on the Womens Health Protection Act

[bigtree]

Manu Raju @mkraju 2h
New - Manchin tells us he’s a NO on Dem bill on abortion rights. Says it’s too broad of an expansion. Says he would support a codification of Roe but says this bill goes too far

Link to tweet

...'expands abortion.'

More like restore abortion services which have been severely restricted around the nation. Just what does Manchin think extending the right to the entire nation means, except for expanding those protections beyond the present restrictive and punitive nature of disparate laws passed in several anti-abotion state legislatures, many just this year?

Manchin is voting with republicans (and SC conservatives) to penalize and dictate womens' reproductive health. He has no excuse.


If Roe is reversed, West Virginia has an abortion ban already on the books
https://wvmetronews.com/2022/05/03/if-roe-is-reversed-west-virginia-has-an-abortion-ban-already-on-the-books/

Old West Virginia law making abortion a felony could be revived in post-Roe decision
https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2022/05/old-west-virginia-law-making-abortion-a-felony-could-be-revived-in-post-roe-decision/

[leftstreet]

1. Is he offering a different bill? n/t

[LoisB]

2. Of course he is.

[SheltieLover]

3. Shocking! 😱

[Hoyt]

4. Maybe it would be better to vote on a bill that already has at least 2 GOPer Senators supporting it.

https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/rca_bill_text.pdf

[femmedem]

7. Agreed.

This is going to make Democrats look weak and it will embolden anti-choice activists if we can't get a majority, let alone a filibuster-proof majority, to vote for some kind of abortion-rights protection.

I understand wanting to hold people accountable for their votes, but when we know a bill will fail, it looks performative to force a vote anyway. People would rather see Congress spending its time working on legislation that will pass.

[Hoyt]

9. +1.

[Raven123]

10. Well said

[bigtree]

12. that bill had even less support

...and allowed states and courts to continue to deny women control over their reproductive health.

Collin's bill is a ruse full of holes.

Mini Timmaraju @mintimm 4h (president @NARAL)
Introduced by Sens Collins & Murkowski, this bill *does not* protect the right to abortion across the country should Roe be overturned. And it doesn’t do anything to address the abortion access crisis. 2/6

Mini Timmaraju @mintimm 4h
In fact, their bill would actually weaken current protections for the right to abortion, & it would allow medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion to block care from people who really need it in states across the country. Their bill wouldn’t block bans like #SB8 in TX. 3/6

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

29. Well we could improve on this bill later, but it would help protect women for the time being.

[bigtree]

33. that just something people say

...when they're leaving people behind and at immediate risk to protect their own hides.

'We'll be back!'

Yeah.

[obamanut2012]

8. I agree with this

[bigtree]

11. that bill had even less of a chance of passing

...and maybe you don't realize her bill would allow states to maintain restrictions at the discretion of courts.

Like parental notification for minors seeking an abortion and bans on abortions based on the sex of the fetus — which have been struck down in some states but allowed to stand in others — regulations that could be undermined by the Women’s Health Protection Act but would likely stand under their bill.

Maybe I'm not understanding why you're willing to put forward a bill which states can carve apart. That's what Democrats are trying to legislate against.

If you're for a watered down republican ruse that still lets states deny women full rights to manage their own reproductive health without penalty and humiation, just say that.

Don't pretend Collin's bill protects women's reproductive health choices. It's designed to let states (and courts) continue to control those decisions, exactly what pro-choice proponents are fighting against.

[Hoyt]

15. Looks straightforward to me. I think your are reading a lot into a few lines of legislation.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A State—
(1) may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability;
(2) may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman; and
(3) may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

[bigtree]

17. NARAL

May 5, 2022

...Senators Collins and Murkowski are trying to muddy the waters by pushing a flimsy bill that claims to codify the right to abortion into law but actually weakens the protections we have under current law.

Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have introduced a bill that they claim codifies Roe v. Wade, but would only protect a dramatically restricted version of the constitutional right to abortion. Their version would even more heavily erode access to abortion than what was done to narrow Roe in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling. It would allow bans like Texas’s vigilante ban on abortion and medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion to stand.

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2022/05/06/naral-pro-choice-america-responds-to-the-womens-health-protection-act-vote-scheduled/

[Hoyt]

19. Think they need to take another look. It doesn't do anything like that.

[bigtree]

22. sez you

...and a couple of republicans ( and maybe a 'moderate').

Joe Scar, too. Impressive.

If you feel so strongly about it, why hide your light in this thread? Start one promoting the republican bill and open it up to debate. You won't get one from me. Not giving credence to ANY republican proposal. They are epic trolls, and this bill of theirs is no exception.

[Hoyt]

27. Well, why don't you show us by pointing at 1, 2, and/or 3, where the problem is.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A State—

(1) may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability;

(2) may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman; and

(3) may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

[bigtree]

28. nope

...go shop the republican bill somewhere else.

You have thread starting privileges, no?

[Hoyt]

30. Because you can't.

[bigtree]

35. start your own thread

...I said quite clearly that I will NOT debate you on this.

You. I will not debate YOU.

Draw whatever conclusions you want.

[Hoyt]

36. Why not debate? It's only 3 lines.

[bigtree]

38. try this

...in about three seconds, you'll no longer be speaking to me in any way that I can read or respond.

Adjust your posts accordingly, or not.

[Hoyt]

42. Democrats will fail by trying to do too much in one bill when a simple bill is needed now.

The only possible criticism of the Collins, Murkowski bill is the "conscience protection" which won't change anything from what we already have.

"RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on laws regarding conscience protection."

I get Democrats wanting to solve every issue related to abortion in one bill. But right now we need to maintain Roe v Wade by getting that codified.

[bigtree]

21. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut is the main sponsor of the Women's Health Protection Act

...Mr Blumenthal said that the legislation proposed by the Republican senators from Alaska and Maine won’t do enough to protect access to abortion.

“They're too many gaps and loopholes that would easily enable TRAP laws, that impose requirements, for example, that mandate width of hallways, admitting privileges,” Mr Blumenthal said. “But also permit six week bans, eight week bans. I think our legislation really fully and admirably protects reproductive rights in ways that draft doesn't.”

TRAP laws refer to Targeted restrictions on abortion providers meant to make it harder for people to seek one.

“There’s nothing in there that requires any provider to provide any kind of care,” he said. The Collins-Murkowski legislation, known as the Reproductive Choice Act, says it would codify Roe and Casey’s rulings and says states cannot impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion before fetal viability but would allow states to impose restrictions after fetal viability and would allow states to enact regulations to protect women’s health and safety.

But Mr Blumenthal said that does still allow for severe curtailing of access to abortion. Under the Women’s Health Protection Act, state governments would not be allowed to restrict a provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs for abortion, offer abortion services via telemedicine or immediately provide services if it’s determined a delay could harm a mother’s life.

https://news.yahoo.com/top-democrat-abortion-legislation-blasts-192246823.html?msclkid=f98dc62bd15b11ecadbbaf4658f786ff

[Hoyt]

25. I'm sorry, I think some people ain't reading the few lines correctly. Fetal Viability is 23/24 weeks

Sounds to me that the proposed bill would actually increase abortion period over current law in many states.

I think someone is trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

Can't make it any clearer than:

(a) IN GENERAL.—A State—

(1) may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability;

(2) may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman; and

(3) may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

[Polybius]

48. Roe allows states to enact parental notifications

We shouldn't be going further than what Roe allows.

[bigtree]

49. many of the original protections have been corrupted by state restrictions

...we should absolutely expand access, availability, and strengthen women's control over their reproductive health.

Parental notification isn't the worst of what the republican bill would allow states and courts to further erode rights and protections for women.

Roe obviously hasn't halted that steady erosion of rights, access, availability, and control for women over their own reproductive health choices.

'Expanding Roe' is a catch phrase which intends to maintain the unacceptable status quo where the right to this legal procedure has been corrupted by courts and political and religious ideologues in state houses.

We should absolutely move past Roe to solidify it.

[Polybius]

55. The public doesn't want that, regardless of what many here support

Pluss, we don't have the votes. The choice is no bill or a codified bill.

[bigtree]

56. I'm a black man who was born into segregation

...don't give a shit about people who want to deny me my rights.

Don't dare tell me my natural rights should wait until the politics agree.

[FBaggins]

16. Toward what end?

It might get 51+, but it won't get 60... and Manchin still won't vote to end the filibuster just because he might vote for the bill.

It would be an awfully pyrrhic victory

[Hoyt]

20. Well, you'll get AT LEAST 2 more votes than what the Democratic bill will get.

[Demsrule86]

51. It is something. I think we should. It would offer some protection.

[Blue Owl]

5. He can't work any new coal profits into it

[FarPoint]

6. The only purpose Manchin serves in the Democratic Party is....

He is a Place Holder-EMPTY SUIT....to keep our majority in the Senate...he does not serve the Democratic Party agenda.

[Meowmee]

13. I am shocked

[FoxNewsSucks]

14. will this count toward his

"-votes with Biden" score?

[Demsrule86]

26. I hope you are not insinuating that Biden doesn't back codifying Roe...he simply knows unless

we get more Democrats elected, it won't happen. And since no Republicans are going to cross over, we don't have the votes...I suppose some here will be very surprised, but I don't understand why...clearly we need more Democrats.

[FoxNewsSucks]

34. of course not why would you think that?

The comment was about Manchin, who once again is thwarting his president, his party and flipping the bird to most of the country

[Demsrule86]

52. My mistake...mea culpa

[BlueTsunami2018]

18. The Greatest Democrat in History️ strikes again.

What a wonder and joy it is to have him around.

[Demsrule86]

24. Well McConnell would be the leader if not for Manchin so I thank God everyday he is there.

We would not have gotten a SCOTUS judge or any judges.

[Demsrule86]

23. He is in a pro-life state. Unless he retires he can't vote for this bill. It always comes down

to...we need more Democrats in the House and the Senate. I never expected to get a bill out before we hopefully win the midterms. And there will be no bill at all if we don't win. We need to keep Manchin and Sinema and add them to the Senate...same for the house.

[leftstreet]

40. What would happen if he did?

He couldn't get reelected?

[Demsrule86]

53. Exactly, he would lose. And we need him to keep McConnel out.

[czarjak]

31. Sleeping with the enemy of the people should have conseQuences. True POS.

[Ferrets are Cool]

32. I am not allowed to say what I really think of this POS

[onecaliberal]

41. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Scrivener7]

44. Someone didn't like this but I'm with you. I wish we had a couple more

Dems to make him as powerless as he should be.

[Ferrets are Cool]

45. +1

[Elwood P Dowd]

37. Manchin sure knows how to garner extra TV time. (nt)

[ColinC]

39. This bill is not expected to pass.

It will basically be used likely for campaign ads to paint all anti choice Republicans as backwards religious fanatics. Manchin is super irrelevant in this situation.

[doc03]

43. I would like to say a lot of things about Manchin

but it is against DU rules.

[Zeitghost]

46. 11 votes short...

But it's Manchins fault...


Meanwhile, Biden is filling the courts with Democratic nominees, including the first woman of color on the highest court in the land. All of which would be much harder if not impossible if Joe Manchin wasn't winning a blue Senate seat in one of the reddest states in the nation.

[bigtree]

47. Manchin voted with republicans in the Senate again, against every member of his own party, again

...Pres. Biden gets that.

Biden after GOP vote presses voters to elect pro-abortion rights lawmakers

The White House on Wednesday reacted to a failed Senate vote on abortion legislation by encouraging Americans to elect more pro-abortion rights lawmakers to the state and federal levels.

“Republicans in Congress – not one of whom voted for this bill – have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives,” President Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the vote.

“To protect the right to choose, voters need to elect more pro-choice senators this November, and return a pro-choice majority to the House. If they do, Congress can pass this bill in January, and put it on my desk, so I can sign it into law,” Biden said.

https://thehill.com/news/administration/3485189-biden-after-gop-vote-presses-voters-to-elect/

[Torchlight]

50. He does the minimum amount of policy required of him to remain a Democrat.

All else he does is about standing in the way for a few more minutes of spotlight before he spends the weekend cruising the sound on his yacht.

Yet, the assertions march ever on like ants that he's a guy I should really be grateful to and for.

[DiamondShark]

54. Realistically, Biden should appoint 27 Supreme Court Judges.

Simple as that. Senate should get 27 SC Judges on the bench in the fastest move to stop this. If Coney Barrett can be confirmed quickly, we can get 27 on the court. No need to expand by passing bill or such, just start placing Judges on the court.