r/politics • u/politico ✔ Politico • May 12 '22
Congress just failed to codify abortion rights protections – again. We are POLITICO journalists reporting on the Supreme Court draft opinion. Ask us anything. AMA-Finished
In a 49-51 vote, the Senate failed to advance a sweeping abortion rights bill yesterday that would have prevented states from enacting abortion bans. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined all Republicans (including Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) in voting against it. This was the second time this year that the Senate has voted on abortion protections, with the same result.
While talks have begun around a scaled-back version of the bill that could potentially win the votes of those three members, any legislation protecting abortion rights currently has no chance of clearing the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Unless that changes, Dems acknowledge they’re left with one main option: attempt to defy the odds and win more power in the midterms.
So what’s next? Ask us anything about what Dems and abortion rights activists are aiming for next, legal implications, the impact on reproductive rights and more. We’re with:
- Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter (one of our two reporters who broke the original story
- Marianne Levine, Senate reporter
- Alice Miranda Ollstein, health care reporter who’s been reporting on abortion
Some more reading for context:
Read the language in Justice Alito’s draft opinion
How this could impact the midterm elections
How penalties for abortion could vary by state if Roe falls
EDIT: Our reporters had to get back to their work, thanks for joining us and for all your thoughtful questions!
112
May 12 '22
Do journalists ever ask merkowski and Collins the so called "bipartisan senators" why they only cross the aisle if their vote doesn't matter?
14
u/Crazyghost8273645 May 13 '22
Their response recently was they proposed their own version to codify abortion which was more conservative than the dem version . I didn’t study the details but that is what it is
→ More replies (1)21
u/simplepleashures May 13 '22
Their version grants immunity to a doctor that deliberately lets a woman die.
Also the Democratic version bans state laws calling for medically-unnecessary restrictions, like the laws requiring you to get an ultrasound and wait 24 hours or requiring providers to give you brochures with anti-abortion propaganda and photos of terminated fetuses. Murkowski and Collins want to continue all that.
→ More replies (5)5
u/itemNineExists Washington May 13 '22
I was reading an article about it. The bill that was voted on, it for one thing blocks laws that require women to make visit an abortion provider when it's not medically necessary. It also might block laws that require parental notification. Those laws were allowed under roe.
So basically, Collins and Murkowski are like "We want to make things exactly as they were under roe", whereas the Democrats actually want to take action to protect women. Honestly, their argument doesn't make sense to me. The judiciary and the legislature arrive at decisions in a different way. There's no reason, or benefit, to saying "Let's just do what the judges did." In this case saying, "abortion access was exactly right last month."
→ More replies (11)
292
u/bladel May 12 '22
Why are so many of today’s headlines “Dems fail to pass abortion rights bill”, and not “Republicans block abortion rights bill”?
34
May 12 '22 edited May 13 '22
Because even if there was no filibuster you would need 50 votes. Only 49 democrats voted for it.
People view abortion rights on a sliding scale and not as a yes or no.
This bill failed to address that because allowed access to any abortion for any reason during all 9 months, A very unpopular view.I'm having trouble finding a poll on a third trimester abortion bit second trimester only has a 28% approval whereas 1st trimester has a 60% approval. Link below.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/amp/
Edit: I totally dropped the ball on that second paragraph. This bill keeps the requirement of abortions for non-viable babies and allows states to extend that farther.
The justification as to why the last democrat didn't vote for the bill is because Manchin said it expanded abortion rights. It does this by stopping any laws that could hinder or slow the ability to get an abortion. This includes a waiting period, multiple visit requirements, requiring certain tests before hand, any law that could decrease the number of clinics, any law that would increase the costs for the patient including including costs incurred through travel, day care, or time off work, etc... It would supposedly get rid of hundreds of laws. Not saying whether that's good or bad but this is the reason.
35
u/bladel May 13 '22
Susan Collins basically staked her career on being a pro-choice Republican. And she isn't up again until 2026. Doesn't explain why she, and the other dwindling moderates, didn't come over.
Manchin was always going to be a No.
6
→ More replies (7)3
u/itemNineExists Washington May 13 '22
McConnell has leverage over every Republican Senator. Campaign funding and whatnot. Whatever it is, they're in lockstep on every issue.
10
u/PhoneSeveral May 13 '22
Not true. The bill draws a line at fetal viability except when the mother's life/health is at risk. Just like in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
2
May 13 '22
I totally goofed up and put Manchin's reasoning. I saw the quote where Manchin said he didn't vote because it expanded the current federal rules and then the article I read must have confused the "except when the mothers life/health is at risk part".
2
6
u/phoebe_phobos May 13 '22
People expect Democrats to protect civil rights. Nobody expects that from Republicans.
→ More replies (1)2
169
u/greywar777 May 12 '22
Does the leadership of our country realize how much violence is simmering underneath everything?
199
51
u/Minimum_Escape May 12 '22
I think so considering one of the Senate members called the cops when someone used chalk outside their house.
That being said, they don't give a damn, they have a monopoly on violence so they comfortable and will gladly sic the state to bash our heads in.
→ More replies (2)9
u/sionnachrealta May 12 '22
It's Susan Collins, and ironically, the chalk was actually a pro-life message in support of her
40
u/Carbonatite Colorado May 12 '22
I've been saying for quite some time that we're in a cold Civil War.
11
u/kingjpp Colorado May 12 '22
I think it's about to get hot
8
u/Carbonatite Colorado May 12 '22
Domestic terrorism is inevitable at this point.
I mean, we've already seen it. January 6th was just a taste. It's pretty scary to think about what we're extremely likely to see in the future.
7
u/-milkbubbles- Florida May 13 '22
Domestic terrorism has been happening way before Jan. 6th. These people have been bombing abortion clinics and shooting up public spaces for decades now. But no one cares about domestic terrorism unless it’s anybody left of center doing it.
→ More replies (1)14
→ More replies (28)7
May 12 '22
I think they plan on squashing anyone on the left side with police brutality. That's what this rushing to defend the justices was all about. They don't care about the violence on the other side. What have they done about J6 except a bunch of theater?
56
u/beeemkcl May 12 '22
What are the chances that SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts gets at least one of the other conservative Justices to agree to not fully overturn Roe vs. Wade.
45
u/Asteroth555 May 12 '22
Low but I don't think 0. I can imagine a shocking Kavanaugh pivot, he's sided with liberal justices like once on another 7-2 ruling I think.
40
u/Star_Road_Warrior May 12 '22
Gorsuch penned a pretty surprising (and correct) opinion on a gay rights issue not long ago, maybe he can be reasoned with.
6
2
→ More replies (2)62
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
The odds of Roberts being able to pull another GOP-appointed justice to a more centrist opinion in the pending Mississippi abortion case seem low. On occasion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has voted with Roberts on votes about whether to take some abortion cases. They’ve also paired up on unrelated cases involving the Fourth Amendment, retirement benefits, and efforts to ban evictions during the pandemic.
That said, Roe v. Wade has been a hotly-debated issue in American jurisprudence since it was issued in 1973 and has long been a central point of attack by conservative legal scholars, activists and politicians. While Kavanaughonce considered himself as someone seeking common ground between two warring camps on abortion, it’s unclear if he still feels those impulses and if they’re enough to overcome the doubts he has about Roe.
-Josh
73
u/SockdolagerIdea May 12 '22
Self medicated abortion pills (SMAs) can be used for over 90% of all abortions in the United States and are safer than Tylenol and Viagra, but they have been severely restricted by the FDA for no scientific reason- only purely political ones. If the FDA would allow SMAs to at the very least, be prescribed by any doctor and filled at any pharmacy, and at best to allow them to be sold over the counter like Plan B pills, it would absolutely change the dystopian nightmare we are about to enter. Would you be willing to write at least one article if not more about how the FDA can empower all females in the United States into having ownership of their bodies instead of State governments?
89
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
I’ve written extensively about abortion pill access for over a year now, starting with my coverage of a lawsuit against the Trump administration for refusing to allow the pills to be prescribed by telemedicine during the pandemic. When the Biden administration came into power, the FDA first moved to lift the in-person dispensing requirement for the pills just during the pandemic — arguing that it’s not worth the threat of a patient catching Covid to make them come get the drugs handed to them by a doctor.
Months later, a lot of new studies came out from the U.K. and other countries that allowed telemedicine abortions during the pandemic and found them to be just as safe as getting the pills in-person and often safer because it enabled patients to end a pregnancy earlier when they didn’t have to figure out travel to a clinic. Based on that data, the FDA moved to lift some of the restrictions on the pills permanently, but they did leave some in place, including a requirement that doctors and pharmacies get a special certification in order to prescribe them. Activists argue this is an unjustified burden that limits access to the pills and are still pushing for the remaining limits to be lifted.
There is also a major knowledge gap around the pills, with most people in the country (including many doctors!) not knowing they exist, and if they do, not knowing how/when to use them. Many states have also moved to restrict the use of the pills, creating a chilling effect where patients are afraid to seek them out even where they’re legal and doctors are afraid to prescribe them or even provide follow-up care.
Here is just some of my reporting on this issue:
Supreme Court reinstates restrictions on abortion pill
Will at-home abortions make Roe v. Wade obsolete?
Abortion pill decision could reshape reproductive health war
New attention on abortion pill dispensing amid challenge to Roe v. Wade
FDA loosens rules for distributing abortion pills, opening new battle fronts
Abortion advocates’ strategy depends on pills. An information gap threatens their efforts.
-Alice25
u/SockdolagerIdea May 12 '22
Well now I know what Im doing this afternoon! LOL! Thank you so much for writing these articles- now get your reporter friends to do the same! LOL!
I was thinking, because there is so much rage right now with no real place to focus it other than the Supreme Court, which wont do a whole lotta good, maybe if we, and by we I mean every single person who is outraged about this, focused our efforts on getting the FDA to allow SMAs over the counter, we could actually effect change!
3
u/1lazydaisy May 12 '22
Yes thank you! I’ve been looking for direction. How can I turn this into ACTION!
32
u/MojaveMauler Nevada May 12 '22
Are there any states that currently have abortion protections that you feel might lose them as a result of gerrymandered state districts? Meaning, if left to a state-wide vote, it would retain abortion protections, but due to representation being organized in a statistically unfair way, that protection would be under threat.
40
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
That’s hard to say going forward but I will note that it’s already a factor in a lot of states that have a heavily Republican legislature (in large part thanks to gerrymandering) but a popularly-elected Democratic governor. Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina come to mind as examples where there already is and could continue to be a fight between the legislature and governor over abortion rights.
-Alice7
u/-milkbubbles- Florida May 13 '22
Yeah and Florida is one where the governor and legislature would agree but most of the state would disagree.
7
u/Kingofearth23 New York May 12 '22
Montana maybe. It's protected by the state constitution, but we know how conservatives view and treat parts of the constitution that they don't like. Also Alaska's known for being quite libertarian, but the legislature fits more conservative by the year.
→ More replies (2)
40
u/FAGITRON_WINS May 12 '22
I read on Volokh that you have received more information than just the draft opinion. Does your source have any knowledge of whether the Justices have been instructed to separately and independently write multiple opinions depending on the vote count?
31
u/RightC May 12 '22
How will this issue be framed by both parties heading into the midterm?
Is this an election swinging issue?
54
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
Democrats are making it clear that they plan to make the reversal of Roe a key part of their campaigns, especially in their push to keep the Senate, the legislative body that confirms Supreme Court justices. Democrats are making their messaging about choice. Meanwhile, Republicans largely say abortion will be left up to the states and aren’t expected to make it a key focus in the midterms. Instead, GOP senators primarily want to talk about inflation and Biden’s border policy.
- Marianne
I’ve also seen a big push from Democrats to frame the threat from SCOTUS as stretching beyond abortion. You definitely see that from President Biden — who has often shied away from discussing the issue directly. Following our publication of the draft opinion, Biden made it all about the bigger threat to privacy rights and what the Court and conservatives could come after next, from contraception to same-sex marriage. (more on that here) If the final SCOTUS opinion that comes out is narrower than the draft opinion and really does focus just on abortion without targeting broader privacy rights, that could put some leaders in a difficult spot messaging-wise.
When it comes to Republicans, Marianne is right that they would really rather not be talking about this! I’ve heard a lot of people saying they’re like the “dog that caught the bus” — a.k.a. They’ve been working for decades — very openly! — to put judges on the bench who would outlaw abortion. But now that they’re on the cusp of achieving that goal, they’re extremely divided on what to do now. Anti-abortion activist groups, meanwhile, are not being so quiet. They’re pouring millions of dollars into campaigns against vulnerable swing state Democrats like Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and are working to portray them as “extreme” on the issue of abortion.
- Alice→ More replies (1)22
u/Carbonatite Colorado May 12 '22
I’ve heard a lot of people saying they’re like the “dog that caught the bus” — a.k.a. They’ve been working for decades — very openly! — to put judges on the bench who would outlaw abortion
The frightening thing is that it's not the bus, it is a bus. As mentioned, the implications of this extend to things like birth control and LGBTQ rights as well.
Do you think there's any connection between this impending decision and some of the rather extreme legislation we're recently seeing in states like Florida and Texas (e.g., "Don't Say Gay" laws, criminalizing gender affirming care for teens)? Are these pieces of legislation some kind of "set-up"? Is it plausible that they're deliberately trying to bait for lawsuits in the hope that a landmark LGBTQ rights case could make it to SCOTUS to force the Court to render judgement against civil rights the way they have with abortion rights?
→ More replies (1)8
6
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
IMHO no this is not a swing issue, the economy will play a greater role.
→ More replies (4)17
u/soline May 12 '22
The Republicans won’t save us from that either.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Iced____0ut May 12 '22
If history tells us anything, electing a Republican will make it worse.
4
u/thewhizzle May 13 '22
Your average voter knows nothing about history, economics, sociology, really anything. They only needed to be reminded of whatever grievance they're facing now, and that it's the fault of whomever's in power. The general problem with representative democracy.
54
May 12 '22
Question- why do states rights matter more than the peoples rights? Is the state not nothing without the people?
69
u/Anlysia May 12 '22
Hate to tell you this dude, but the Senate existing already proves that land matters more than people.
37
u/Carbonatite Colorado May 12 '22
The Electoral College has entered the chat
14
May 12 '22
Yup. Entirely by design. It's the only government the slave holding colonies would agree to.
4
9
u/mourningdoo May 12 '22
This doesn't answer your question, but states' rights is a misnomer. What it's really about is authority in the federal/state system. And the republicans are reframing it so it seems that both parties are talking about the same thing. But really, they're saying that their authority to keep marginalized people marginalized is more important than the rights of the marginalized to have medical autonomy. Because let's be honest, the only people who are going to be stopped by any future abortion ban are people who would need services like Planned Parenthood.
9
u/global_ferret May 12 '22
What are you talking about? Anything not outlined in the constitution or bill of rights is left up to the states to decide, unless the federal government overrides.
But the second type of separation of powers is equally important, the granting of separate powers to the federal and state governments. Under the Constitution, the state legislatures retain much of their sovereignty to pass laws as they see fit, but the federal government also has the power to intervene when it suits the national interest. And under the “supremacy clause” found in Article VI, federal laws and statutes supersede state law.
3
u/Creepy_Helicopter223 May 13 '22
If you have tried to talk to any states rights people, you’ll notice that it’s not a coherent argument and they abandon it when it’s in their benefit, aka they aren’t using it in good faith. Realistically the argument would be about federalism vs centralization.
Also land matters more to the GOP. Every branch of government is skewed towards rural areas
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)3
7
u/Commander_Prime May 12 '22
First off, thank you for taking the time to discuss. That is always appreciated!
Any insight into what both sides seek to include/are looking for in the scaled-back version of the bill?
It has been a stressful past few weeks - how are you all holding up?
12
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
- You can read more about the bipartisan conversations taking place this week here.
- I’ve covered abortion rights for several years now so it’s been both gratifying and stressful to have the issue thrust into the spotlight like this. I’ve been churning out stories since Josh’s big scoop came out about what this means both on ground and for people in the corridors of power and generally just trying to rise to this moment as a reporter and do the best work I can to hold officials accountable and lift up the stories of vulnerable people who will be the most impacted. I also am trying to remind myself that this is a marathon, not a sprint, and I need to pace myself and rest when I can so I don’t burn out and can keep on top of it for months if not years to come.
-Alice
Nice of you to ask. (You know this is the internet, right?) It’s been a stressful couple of weeks due to the attention to the story and our desire to make sure we’re getting it right on a subject of such significance to so many people in Washington and across the country. But, as Alice notes, we’re talking about a potential change in the law that could have very serious, widespread and concrete impacts on the way people live their lives and rights many have taken for granted for nearly half a century. Despite a lot of interest in how we got the draft and how we handled it, what is happening now and will happen when the court rules in this case is certainly the bigger story.
-Josh3
u/Commander_Prime May 12 '22
Thank you all for such a thoughtful response!
I will definitely be taking a deeper look later today. Glad there is a source to keep track of the conversation.
You’re doing great! It’s easy to get lost in the thick of things or gloss over how behind all the headlines are a bunch of dedicated, hardworking people. Regardless of where this ends up taking the country, know that you’re all appreciated!
4
u/Tricolor3s Europe May 12 '22
Theoretically, couldn't the possible 52 senators in favor of such a law overturn the filibuster as well?
→ More replies (1)
76
u/lotion-in-the-bucket Virginia May 12 '22
So does Manchin have anything to say about the thousands of women who will have to use wire hangers to abort the clump of cells in their bodies?
77
u/Moldybreadyumyum May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
He does. He told them to “get fucked”. He doesn’t give a shit. He’s fake Democrat with a Republican agenda. Just like Tulsi Gabbard.
→ More replies (1)21
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
"Take a trip to a different state"
16
u/Telandria May 12 '22
I think that’s actually illegal in Texas now.
29
u/jfinn1319 Canada May 12 '22
Not according to the 14th amendment. Interstate travel is absolute as a citizen of the United States. If Texas tries to stop people from leaving, or enforcing border check pregnancy tests or any other kind or medieval shit, they run immediately into the abridgement text of the 14th.
I mean, I’m just a Canadian, but I’m pretty sure those kinds of laws aren’t gonna hold up for more than a minute.
18
u/Any_Coyote6662 May 12 '22
We have laws that prohibit crossing state lines to marry or have sex in a state with lower age of consent laws. So I would not be surprised if we had laws preventing that.
13
u/AsAGayJewishDemocrat Missouri May 12 '22
It’s still incredible to me that there was the lobbying power to essentially require a national drinking age but we just let every state decide when the right time is to put a penis inside a young woman.
6
u/Shock_n_Oranges May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
Isn't that because you're breaking Federal law of age of consent?
Edit: to clarify, the federal government specifically has laws about transporting minors(under 18) across state borders for the purpose of sexual activities.
3
u/Not_So_Hot_Mess May 12 '22
Age of consent varies by state so not a Federal law for age of consent.
→ More replies (2)7
→ More replies (2)2
May 12 '22
I e read about the US prosecuting people who traveled internationally to avoid age of consent laws. Apparently they can also do that if you travel interstate.
Does anyone know if traveling outside your state in order to commit an act that is a felony in your own state is illegal in general and it just isn’t prosecuted for things like cannabis, or if it requires specific statutes?
4
u/Kingofearth23 New York May 12 '22
Federal law officially applies to all American citizens anywhere in the world. Technically the federal age of consent is 18 (as that is the federal age of maturity) but states are free to make it whatever they want. Americans outside of the states are thus bound by the federal age.
Obviously if you walk into any alcohol place in Europe and tell them they need to card Americans, you'd be laughed out. The US is only really enforcing federal laws that are truly important.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)8
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
Abortion in Texas is legal but only though 'heartbeat' which is about 6 weeks.
Neighboring New Mexico has zero restrictions on abortion.
According to the CDC about 34% (the highest) of abortions occur 1-6 weeks.
Prescription abortion is the most common method for abortions 1-11 weeks.
Restriction on travel would die in court challenge and only one state politician from Ohio suggested such. She was shutdown by fellow Republicans in their final draft.
→ More replies (2)5
u/BlazingSpaceGhost New Mexico May 12 '22
As a New Mexico resident I can say there are lots of plans to help Texan women come here for our wonderful camping and outdoor recreation. If they happen to see a doctor while they are here enjoying the sites then oh well how could we have known.
3
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
Yep looks like abortion tourism will be a new niche industry. Probably a good idea to pair it with some spa services to help relax during recovery.
32
u/heirloom_beans May 12 '22
Be like his daughter; fake your MBA degree and earn $19 million a year by inflating the price of EpiPens by 400%
→ More replies (6)5
u/121gigawhatevs I voted May 12 '22
The premise that manchin would give a shit about that is so laughable it’s almost naive to even pose this question
2
u/sionnachrealta May 12 '22
As much as I agree that Manchin should have voted for this, it wouldn't have passed anyway thanks to a Republican filibuster. Manchin is an issue, yes, but his power comes from the Republicans who are unwilling to do their jobs to help anyone except their billionaire masters
→ More replies (21)3
u/steveotheguide May 12 '22
"I can't hear you from my house boat and if you try to get much closer my personal guards will beat you"
16
u/chatte_epicee Washington May 12 '22
If the draft opinion doesn't change much, how at stake is Griswold? It seems like Obergefell, Loving, Lawrence, and Eisenstadt all rely on the precedent from Griswold (as does Roe)...so although people are saying not to overreact, that it won't go THAT far...the opinion sure seems to set it up.
24
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
Well, the best reason to think the draft opinion–if it emerges as the final majority opinion in similar form–won’t undercut those decisions is a simple one: It says so. Twice. Given that, it seems to me it would be very difficult for a justice who signs this opinion to explain his or her vote to overturn those cases. And you’d need four to take up such a case and five to rule on it.
Now, a lot of people think Alito is simply saying, ‘Don’t look at the man behind the curtain,’ when in fact we should. It certainly does seem like the broad themes and rationale of the Alito draft could be applied to cut back or eliminate some of those other rights. (for those not familiar with the other cases, they’re about same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, contraception and consensual adult sexual acts.)
Conservative legal scholars I’ve talked to say there are relatively arcane reasons why undercutting Roe wouldn’t affect same-sex marriage, gay rights, or privacy related to sex. The key contraception decision, Griswold, is probably more vulnerable as a theoretical matter than the others, these experts say. Whether a case like that would reach the court or be taken up by them is far from clear.
I think an opinion like this will trigger a lot of litigation that has nothing to do with any of those precedents. It will have to do with medication abortion and state laws criminalizing travel for abortion or “conspiracy” to help someone get an abortion out of state. Also issues like fetal personhood. My view is those things will produce wrangling at the court long before the court takes a contraception case or tilts at overturning same-sex marriage rights.
-Josh9
u/Creepy_Helicopter223 May 13 '22
My question is though is why can you trust that? Everything I have seen tells me they never operate in good faith. One minute you can’t elect a SC judge during an election cycle, next time you can. Logic and reasoning doesn’t seem to really apply here, versus just doing whatever it takes foe the GOP to win
13
u/CarpetbaggerForPeace May 12 '22
You are assuming good faith on their part. I think that is naive. Oh no, they can't justify overturning gay marriage but their religion tells them to, so they will. And what is anyone going yo do about it? Nothing.
→ More replies (1)5
u/-milkbubbles- Florida May 13 '22
Every single one of those justices said under oath that they wouldn’t overturn Roe v Wade. Every single one lied. Why should we believe them about anything else?
29
u/TheMoralAmerican May 12 '22
Has anyone brought up the fact that an abortion is requiring a person to save the life of another individual? (The mother is required to save the life of the baby)
Are they going to require everyone to donate blood, to save the life of another person?
Are they going to require family members to donate organs to save the life of another family member?
Are they going to require dead people to donate organs to save the lives of other people?
24
u/Dustyamp1 May 12 '22
No, they aren't going to do those extra things.
They are going to control women, that is their goal. They have never wanted to be logically consistent. They have only ever wanted power and control over others. That's how all rules are. You cannot use gotchas and logical consistency to argue the power away from them.
We need to take it back.
3
u/dasredditnoob I voted May 12 '22
This is what has frustrated me with left wing people for decades: the neglect of Machiavellian power consolidation on people who do not give a fuck if you out logic them or appeal to emotions. Left wing people need to think in the logic of power from here on out
20
u/the_happy_atheist May 12 '22
And furthermore, are they going to require police officers to save the lives of citizens?
→ More replies (1)2
u/itemNineExists Washington May 13 '22 edited May 13 '22
"Is there a moral difference between doing harm and merely[1] allowing harm? If not, [...] there should be no objection to bombing innocent civilians where doing so will minimize the overall number of deaths in war."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/
Essentially the same as the large man variant of the Trolley Problem
→ More replies (1)7
May 12 '22
Are they going to require people to wear masks in public to limit the spread of a deadly virus and potentially save the most vulnerable in their communities? Oh....
19
u/Altruistic_Rub_2308 May 12 '22
Do you believe the SCOTUS has ANY self-awareness as to the damage a clearly biased, political and Christo-Fascist stance has caused or how it will forever ruin the court’s integrity and standing amongst a majority of our citizenry?
They just don’t seem to recognize (or care) how they, in one fell swoop, are obliterating the court’s objectivity, sanctity or reputation.
→ More replies (5)9
May 12 '22
Two of them are sexual predators (that we know of), and one is literally in a cult. They know and they don't care. They have an agenda to push. They don't GAF about "legacies."
17
May 12 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
[deleted]
6
u/the_happy_atheist May 12 '22
It’s not written into it-unfortunately
12
May 12 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
[deleted]
4
u/maywellbe May 12 '22
so, the Government can't RESTRICT religion. that's not a separation, that's a single (and one-way) limitation. I wish there was more to it, but there isn't.
5
u/d36williams Texas May 13 '22
But restricting access to abortion will prevent Jewish women from practicing theirs. Life begins at the first breath. Honestly I'm shocked christian dogma strays so far from their bible
→ More replies (1)
15
u/sarcastroll May 12 '22
What are you thoughts on the similarity between the wording on Alito's dissent on in Obergefell and his majority (draft) opinion overturning Roe?
Specifically his reference to:
the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’”
He uses this as an excuse to strip women of control over their own bodies in his majority opinion. He also used it as a reason who gay marriage shouldn't happen in his minority opinion.
Am I being unreasonable thinking that this wording choice was done for a clear reason, and a clear sign of intent?
10
May 12 '22
"deeply rooted history" is a direct phrase (a test) from the 1997 case Washington v. Glucksberg. Without going too far into it, it is a check on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The interpretation of which holes up a vast amount of rights ranging from martial and intimacy rights, privacy (interconnected), family and education rights, and even bodily autonomy rights. So yes the wording is purposefully chosen.
8
u/idredd May 12 '22
If not violence, where do ya'll imagine we go from here? US democracy (always somewhat fragile) seems at a breaking point and an extreme political minority seems currently capable of forcing its will on the rest of the population sans-consequence. Do you get the vibe that elected officials in the Democratic Party realize how dangerous this is?
→ More replies (1)
12
May 12 '22
How come it feels like the dems are constantly getting their teeth kicked in despite winning the popular vote, the presidency, the house, the senate. Trump was only in office for 4 years, why cant Biden use the same strategy?
→ More replies (2)7
u/atomfullerene May 12 '22
Trump didn't actually accomplish much.
→ More replies (1)14
u/bladel May 12 '22
Yes, aside from hijacking the Supreme Court for a generation.
9
u/atomfullerene May 12 '22
When Trump had supreme court vacancies open in front of him, he was able to fill them. When Biden had a supreme court vacancy open in front of him, he was also able to fill it. The difference is that Trump got 3 chances and Biden got 1 (so far, but I doubt he'll get more).
So what strategy are you expecting Biden to be able to use that Trump used, exactly?
→ More replies (3)7
u/bladel May 12 '22
I’’m not proposing anything for Biden. Trump has stacked the courts with extremists for the rest of my natural lifetime. That clearly qualifies as “accomplishing much.”
In a normal timeline, the Scalia vacancy would’ve been filled before Trump took office, and/or the Ginsburg seat would’ve remained vacant until Biden was inaugurated. But McConnell and Trump have created a new precedent, where the Senate Majority Leader has an effective veto over SCOTUS appointments.
7
u/atomfullerene May 12 '22
Here's what I'm getting at: OP said "why cant Biden use the same strategy" as Trump.
The problem is that there is no secret strategy for success that Trump used and Biden is not using. Trump failed repeatedly to get what he wanted with his direct use of presidential power and he failed repeatedly to get much passed through congress. The supreme court picks he got were through a combination of McConnell's actions in stealing a seat and pure luck, and in filling them he merely did what literally any president could do with a senate majority (and what Biden did when he got a chance).
6
u/neosituation_unknown May 12 '22
Thank you for being here and answering questions!
Here is my issue. From my perspective this entire bill was just entirely for show. The bill had no exemptions for providers on religious grounds, and would in fact expand the basic minimums that Roe provided in its decision. Fair enough, but knowing this, Schumer chose to continue this charade.
Why was there no effort made to get buy-in from Murkowski, Collins, and Manchin? No attempt at compromise?
80% of the public supports abortion within a range of reasonable restrictions. It could get done but it was a massive failure. From your knowledge was there any attempt to forge a compromise bill?
→ More replies (3)10
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
At the moment, it’s unlikely the Collins-Murkowski bill would come up for a vote, with many Democrats viewing it as insufficient to combat state limits on abortion. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also dismissed the legislation last week, saying that Democrats are “not willing to compromise something as vital as this.” But Collins is speaking with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) about a potential bipartisan path forward on legislation that would codify Roe and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. It seems more likely that if they’re able to forge a compromise there could be a vote on their bill. However, regardless of whether it’s bipartisan there aren’t 60 votes right now in the Senate to codify those two decisions.
-Marianne→ More replies (5)
3
u/Oleg101 May 12 '22
Do you guys enjoy listening to the Pod Save America’s weekly ‘Politico awards’ ?
3
3
3
u/RoeDisrespecter May 12 '22
What makes you think a codification of Roe would be a valid exercise of congressional power? Is it the Commerce Clause?
→ More replies (5)
3
u/VladKatanos May 12 '22
POST THE NAMES OF WHO VOTED FOR AND AGAINST.
That way instead of just whining about it, folk can be informed on who to vote for/against election/reelection in this upcoming election.
Naming public figures =/= doxxing.
9
24
u/TinyDKR May 12 '22
Why are we assuming that Democrats want to pass abortion protections? They've had 50 years to do so, with multiple administrations and majorities, including the 95th Congress which had a filibuster-proof majority. No action has been taken to pass a Constitutional Amendment whatsoever.
Even supposing that they were able to pass a bill in Congress, could SCOTUS not rule it unconstitutional?
25
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
There are a ton of factors why Democrats haven’t codified abortion rights protections into law over the past several decades.
- There hasn’t been a pro-abortion rights majority in the House until just the last few years, when the “blue wave” election of 2018 put a lot more women, people of color and progressives into office. There is still not a pro-abortion rights majority in the Senate, as we saw very clearly this week. The House is more reflective of where popular opinion across the country is on the issue than the Senate, where small-population red states are given equal power to, say, California.
- Related to that, the Democratic party hasn’t always been as pro-abortion rights as it is now. For decades there were many vocally anti-abortion Democrats at all levels of government. President Joe Biden was famously among them during his time in Congress, and his evolution on the issue has really mirrored how the party has moved to the left in more recent years.
- Democrats have also historically shied away from the abortion issue as part of their attempts to create a political “big tent” and their fear of alienating more conservative swing voters who might otherwise back them. For a long time, the common wisdom among the focus group set was to counsel Democrats to avoid what they consider the “culture war” issue of abortion and focus on “pocketbook issues” like the cost of prescription drugs, childcare, etc. Of course, the question of abortion access and when and whether to have children is a pocketbook issue for tens of millions of people. But that aside, there has also been a growing recognition more recently of the potential of abortion to be a powerful motivator for not only Democratic voters but also some Independents and Republicans who oppose sweeping bans.
- And finally, there’s been a lot of complacency among Democrats on this issue. For years, the idea that Roe could be overturned was considered improbable if not impossible, even as laws in tons of states have passed in recent years making abortion inaccessible even when it remained legal on paper. Many Democratic voters and lawmakers in blue states have also viewed it as a red state problem that wouldn’t impact them and have been slow to recognize that if their blue state is flooded with patients in a post-Roe future, that will absolutely impact them too. (more on that here)
- Alice19
u/billsil May 12 '22
They've had 50 years to do so
The thing is though, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, McCain, and Trump all supported abortion while all saying they'd overturn it. If you actually pressed them on it, they'd say things like "our family would come to a decision together", which sounds a lot like what a woman would do.
Republicans used to be pro-choice, but frequently claimed they weren't. They appointed judges that were to win votes.
8
4
u/Oleg101 May 12 '22
I’m curious if the 95th Congress had anywhere close to be the 60 vote threshold needed to pass legislation for that. I imagine in the 1970’s there were significantly more anti-choice Democrats than there is today.
4
u/Asteroth555 May 12 '22
Even supposing that they were able to pass a bill in Congress, could SCOTUS not rule it unconstitutional?
Yep, they could argue it would infringe on states' rights.
19
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
There was never a chance in hell of it passing in the first place so why is Politico spinning it?
I get covering the issue but this bill was DOA even before the leak.
16
u/billsil May 12 '22
so why is Politico spinning it?
Because people are pissed.
4
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
On the issue I get it, but Schumer brought this bill up for spin only knowing it would not pass Manchin.
→ More replies (2)11
u/billsil May 12 '22
It was about getting it on record.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Ven18 May 12 '22
This the Dems can now use this vote against every Republican Senator running for re-election. They put their name on it so now they have to defend it.
4
May 12 '22
You can't possibly think this is an effective strategy any longer. It's not 1973.
2
u/Ven18 May 12 '22
I never said it was effective I just said that was the rational behind the move.
2
May 12 '22
I think it's what they SAY is the rationale behind the move. They're not dumb enough to think that's going to influence voters. I'm guessing the swing voters are undecided over economic issues (which RvW is but more indirectly). Everyone pretty much knows already where the battle lines are drawn on abortion.
3
3
u/Gropah May 12 '22
So as soon as we already know the outcome, no report on it is needed anymore? So most of the reporting on politics is not needed, because most of the time, people vote with the party line. The people do not need reminders which politicians are fucking up the country?
→ More replies (1)7
u/thepianoman456 May 12 '22
I think the strategy was to get politicians on the record for abortion rights, to be used against them in midterms.
And honestly it would have passed… if not for damn Manchin.
10
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
The filibuster was going to prevail with or without the openly pro-life Catholic Senator from West Virginia.
Democratic Congressional records are well known and the GOP was going to lock-step citing what is in the bill rather than making their official congressional abortion stance clear.
→ More replies (1)3
May 12 '22
I don't think that's true. I think only needing 50 votes is only the case for reconciliation, which can only be used 3 times a year and I believe has to involve money/budgeting. They'd need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Meb2x May 12 '22
What next? Justices can just override precedent and take away a woman’s right to her own body? The Senate can just fail at doing anything to stop it? How can our country just take away rights with no repercussions?
6
2
2
u/TheBigDuo1 May 12 '22
A lot of people think the judges will change their mind. Can you explain how often SCOTUS judges change their votes at such a late stage?
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Chrisman35411 May 12 '22
Why do you think the federal government should have a say in what is or isn't allowed to do to ones body?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/WellWellWellthennow May 12 '22
It was expected fail though right? Was there ever any hope? Wasn’t the purpose to force a vote so those had to go on record as voting against it?
2
2
u/Used-Pianist723 May 13 '22
How is Joe Manchin a Democrat when he has voted several times against the party on many keys issues?
5
May 12 '22
Why isn’t the abortion issue left up to the voters? Can it be included as a question on our ballots?
11
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
Abortion will be on the ballot in at least a few states this year. The first test of public opinion after the Supreme Court’s expected ruling will be a ballot referendum in Kansas in early August seeking to eliminate the protections that are currently in the state constitution for abortion. Then, Vermonters are set to vote on their November ballot on an amendment to insert abortion rights protections into the state constitution.
Other states could get on the bandwagon as well. Activists in Michigan are currently gathering signatures for a ballot measure, arguing that without action, the state’s 1931 abortion ban is set to go back into effect if Roe falls. (more on that here)
But the laws around ballot referenda are different in each state and some make it super hard to get on the ballot. That’s one reason why we haven’t seen more states, for example, put Medicaid expansion to the voters even after the success of many red and purple states voting to expand under Obamacare through a ballot initiative.
-Alice9
u/stahlgrau May 12 '22
Federal laws are not voted on by voters of each state. That's why we elect legislators.
5
u/itemNineExists Washington May 12 '22 edited May 13 '22
Yes exactly. That would be "mob rule". (Not what I'd call it, but it's the common phrase.) The Founders were explicit that thats the reason people elect representatives instead.
19
u/greywar777 May 12 '22
Because its viewed as a right. Rights are defended at the federal level.
Forcing women to give birth seems like a loss of rights. you know?
→ More replies (1)7
u/liquidc4181 May 12 '22
If abortion is returned to the states it will be left up to the voters via elections of state legislators and governor. Your state vote matters.
16
3
May 12 '22
I guarantee you we will see stupid red counties in blue states trying to set their own laws, like mine did during the pandemic, even suing the state of CA to do away with pandemic restrictions. California is only blue because the high population areas concentrated on the coast overwhelm the numbers inland. But geographically, there are huge swaths of red in California, whole counties that look like the deep south. I call my region "Calabama."
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Hcir_ricH May 12 '22
Does Alito’s draft not contradict the 9th amendment?
Given the volatility of the topic of abortion, am I making a mistake to assume it is deeply involved in our nations traditions?
Also, given that states will likely define abortion differently in legal terms and the unintended consequences that will bring to tangentially related topics, how can this not have dire consequences to other precedent set such as Griswold v Connecticut, or other family privacy rulings?
3
u/NopenGrave May 12 '22
Does the watered down version have anything like a timetable? Is there a similar sense of urgency for getting a more-likely-to-pass version up and running compared to this bill?
8
u/politico ✔ Politico May 12 '22
There’s no timetable at the moment for narrower legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) are trying to find a bipartisan path forward, but after yesterday’s vote it’s hard to see 60 senators vote in favor of preserving Roe. Democrats have acknowledged that they’re likely to bring up more floor votes, but they are largely messaging exercises given the numbers in the Senate and the legislative filibuster remaining intact.
-Marianne
2
May 12 '22
Can one of y'all ask Nancy Pelosi why she and other House leaders are still enthusiastically supporting an anti-abortion Democrat?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/myheadfelloff May 12 '22
Dear Politico, what kind of revolution do we need here to fix the fundamentally broken American system of inaccurate representation of the populace?
4
May 12 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
May 12 '22
I personally believe the Democrats love having these rotating villains. They haven't even taken away Manchin's committee appointments. They're harsher on the far left side of the party than they are on the GOP.
3
u/Aztalosios May 12 '22
I unfortunately don't understand government checks and balances enough to answer this myself. If the SCOTUS is about to overturn, or change Roe v. Wade, what is to stop them from also denying the validity of a new law passed?
3
u/Nixonplumber May 12 '22
What do you mean? You seem to have a misunderstanding of the controversy. Judges interpret law they don't rule from the bench and makeup law that is what Roe was about for a lot of people aside from abortion. It's why Roe was on such shaky ground because it was always one ruling away from being voted down. If the Dems passed it as a law then it was be much more difficult to overturn. Does that make sense?
Democrats knew this and I remember when they had a supermajority in 2009 there were calls to pass it as a law but they didn't and they failed their supporters. That very notion is the controversy between Pelosi and Newsom and the infighting
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/GiftHorse2020 May 12 '22
Why is so much American political reporting based on the "outrage over the leak" story and not about the fact that a reactionary court, in some cases illegitimately seated, is ignoring 50 years of settled law and stripping rights from millions of people?
2
u/plentyofsunshine2day May 12 '22
Where does John Roberts fit into all of this?
I can't imagine that he's fully supportive of overturning 50 years of precedent... or is he?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Cobbler63 May 12 '22
Does over turning Roe really mean that states can ban their citizens from going to another state or country to have an abortion? I assume we’re in for an onslaught of challenges to these kinds of laws - going to another state, using and IUD, morning after pill, etc.
→ More replies (8)3
299
u/[deleted] May 12 '22
Many thanks for taking some time with us in what surely is a very busy time..
Roe v Wade was considered 'settled law' spanning 50 years. Isn't it relatively rare for major decisions to be overturned after such a long time? Although sort of unrelated, why is it a constitutional amendment required to overturn Citizens United and not for Roe v. Wade?