Biden admin signals defeat on upcoming abortion ban

[LonePirate]

Link to tweet

President Biden @POTUS

As fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act. They have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives.

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.

The protections that the Women’s Health Protection Act would ensure are essential to the health, safety, and progress of our nation. While it did not pass today, my Administration will not stop fighting to protect access to women’s reproductive care.

To matters worse, the chance of retaining a pro-choice and Dem majority in the House along with adding enough pro-choice senators to overcome the filibuster is zero. Rights are being stolen from us by an illegitimate court and there is nothing we can do about.

[SoonerPride]

1. The Democrats must play a long game and work to change the court

It might take 50 years too.

And we must be willing to hold SCOTUS seats empty for 7 years if we have a Democratic controlled senate and Republican president.

The right has been relentless and ruthless.

We need to take the gloves off and get busy.

[BWdem4life]

13. The people will not wait 50 years to reclaim the right to safe, legal abortions.

Long game my ass.

[SoonerPride]

28. Well what exactly do you propose then?

I'll wait.

[BWdem4life]

38. I don't need to propose anything.

I’m just saying what should be obvious: Small-d democrats and those aligned with them on the subject of abortion will not allow their rights to be taken away. Capital-D democrats are free to make whatever plans abd proposals they want (looks like Biden is hoping to capitalize with an election upset this fall, an obvious choice which may or may not pan out) but in this case, the people will rise up and demand more than the usual from those in office. And they’ll get it, one way or another. If we don’t see bold action from our leaders, there will be a slew of primary challenges from the left flank.

[Hassler]

2. Mazzerati Mansion again.

[Hoyt]

3. Guess Democrats wouldn't even consider voting for the simple bill proposed by Collins and Murkowski

(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.


The only possible criticism of the Collins, Murkowski bill is "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.

[LonePirate]

5. That bill couldn't overcome a filibuster either.

You have to clear the filibuster first. Collins and Murkowski may support that bill but that is meaningless since they will not vote to eliminate the filibuster to pass it.

[JohnSJ]

8. Along with Manchin and Sinema who also oppose getting rid of the filibuster

[Hoyt]

21. Think having a few GOPers sponsoring the legislation might help. But I guess we'll just take

Alito's draft and today's failure as law of the land.

[Novara]

29. I dare you to find those republicans who would support abortion in any form

[LonePirate]

30. Two is not enough when we need eleven. There are not eleven available.

[Hoyt]

32. 2 more votes, at a minimum, than today's failure.

And odds look like come next January we won't even get a vote in House and maybe Senate.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. "may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy"

So much for the "may not impose an undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability" part - and who gets to decide when "fetal viability" is? Their law is full of holes and they know it. They wouldn't have proposed it otherwise.

[Hoyt]

10. Fetile viability is pretty much decided, 23 to 24 weeks. More than in some of the states now.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

16. Like red state legislatures/governors will go along with that?

[Hoyt]

19. OK, then, I guess we stick with Alito's draft and today's failed legislation.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

24. The Republicans' bill gives cart blanche to red states. Same as Alito.

[Hoyt]

26. No it doesn't. Can't ban abortion before fetal viability is quite solid to me.

[Hoyt]

25. Well, if Congress passed it, that would start another years, maybe decades, long effort to

overturn the law.

[FalloutShelter]

7. "Undue burden" are weasel words...

What constitutes and undue burden.? And "fetal viability" same slippery slope.
This bill gives too much ground. IMHO

[Hoyt]

12. Seem plain to me. Fetal viability is almost universally accepted as 23/24 weeks.

And, it's darn sure better legislation than Alito's opinion.

[dawg]

9. I would support voting for such a bill, but ...

I would expect the current court to rule it unconstitutional, holding that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on such matters.

[Hoyt]

14. That's likely a stretch. In any even, a duly enacted law is clearly better than relying on precedent

[Lovie777]

4. It's not over yet . . .

[LonePirate]

15. Yes, it is over, likely for many, many years if not decades.

There is a greater chance of the country dissolving itself than there is of both chambers of Congress passing an abortion protection bill.

[Lovie777]

18. Disagree . ..

[LonePirate]

31. How is it not over? How do think this will change in the near future?

Educate me. What are the reasons for your confidence other than blind hope without a basis in reality?

[LiberatedUSA]

39. It's checkmate.

And if the GOP win big in 2022 and 2024 with their gerrymandering, that will be it. Any election after that will be about as legit as a Russian election.

[rockfordfile]

27. No it's not.

[LonePirate]

33. How is it not over? Explain. What will change in the next 5-10 years?

There is a better than 50% chance we lose at least one majority in Congress this year. If we don’t lose the Senate this year, it will almost certainly flip in 2024 and will remain in Republican control for a very long time. A Republican majority in either chamber will never pass a pro-choice bill.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

11. We know WHO ARE for Women and who ARE NOT.

Go after those who ARE NOT. They are on the record now NOT for women, but for their own power. That goes for Manchin as well.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. That's a horrible headline. It shouts "defeat" when we've just...

begun to fight.

The truth is that the right wing is maybe a third of the population, but is represented by at least half of the legislators. We all know how that happened, and our job is to tell the followers capable of thought that we are here to help.

[Grown2Hate]

42. Underrated post. 100% agree! EOM

[samplegirl]

20. Maybe it's time for pitchforks.

Tired of watching these pukes pass go!
So many of them should be behind bars as well!

[Phoenix61]

22. Zero chance? Beau says you're wrong.

https://democraticunderground.com/100216683026

[JohnSJ]

23. The Supreme Court was the issue in 2016, and people obviously didn't consider it to be

important enough

I never underestimate the stupidity of the American public

I won’t be surprised if that stupidity continues

[Autumn]

34. The SC was an issue before that. It was an issue when Obama was President and Mitch wouldn't

allow him to fill a vacancy. It was an issue when the SC started chipping away at our rights. The SC was an issue in 2000 when the bastards denied Al Gore his rightful place as President. Yeah the stupidity will continue. But I'm going to blame the politicians. They have more power than Joe Blow on the street who votes for them.

[JohnSJ]

36. IT WAS THE ISSUE IN 2016, and what McConnell did to Obama made it clear that it was the

issue in 2016

There was no ambiguity.

We lost three SC nominations because of that reckless behavior of the American Public

[Autumn]

40. You are almost right. We lost four SC nominations since March 2016 because of the nastiness of the

Republican politicians and a few other politicians. We also had two Democratic Presidents who won the popular vote and didn't get their terms. Now there's some stupidity.

[JohnSJ]

41. Yup

[ShazzieB]

35. You know what kills me?

If senators were apportioned to each state according to its population (but still elected statewide), the picture would be markedly different. States with tiny populations have a disproportionate amount of power, because giving every state the same two senators is profoundly undemocratic.

DC and PR statehood NOW!

[JohnSJ]

37. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening anytime soon