GOP, Manchin Vote No to Advance the Far-Left Radical Abortion Bill to Debate
Thank you, Schumer, for allowing the other Democrats to show America that they’re all in for infanticide.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s far-left radical abortion bill titled The Women’s Health Protection Act did not get the 60 votes needed to advance to debate.
Important distinction: This vote was only to bring the bill to debate. Chad explains in a thread.
1) The Senate voted 51-49 today to block debate on a bill to codify Roe.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) had previously been one of the loudest pro-life votes in the Senate. But Casey voted today to overcome a filibuster on the measure.
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) May 11, 2022
The bill is disgusting and goes against everything the supposed pro-choice crowd claims they support: abortion available through all nine months, kids don’t need parent or guardian notification, and no 24-hour waiting period.
So much for rare and safe. Read this entire thread. It’s long but worth it:
Four key parts of the abortion bill Schumer will bring up for a vote next week: https://t.co/A94HUy6x4b
1. How it creates a right to abortion through 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states: pic.twitter.com/LPpHOnuRLK
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) May 5, 2022
Schumer wanted the senators to show everyone where they stand on abortion.
The Democrats, except for pro-life Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), showed us that they’re okay with infanticide. They could not even bring in pro-choice Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
Manchin refused to vote for it because it went “far beyond codifying the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.”
“It is an expansion,” stated Manchin.
This might even affect the Democrats in November because Americans are concerned about inflation. Also, a lot of people who are pro-choice are not radical about it. The loudmouths get all the attention because they’re, well, loud.
So the radical bill might even push aside the independent voters and right-leaning Democrats like Manchin.
Good job, Democrats.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Polls consistently show opposition to abortion at roughly:
1st trimester 35%
2nd trimester 55%
3rd trimester 85%
Opposition in the second trimester increases the more weeks one adds. In essence, the (draft) opinion from Alito captures where the national public opinion is on abortion. Schumer and the d/prog holding this vote are definitely highlighting how Senators voted but not in the way that will help d/prog. Too many sonogram images have changed too many opinions since 1973.
Yes, sonograms, science, and [common] sense are obstacles to reproductive rites progress for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
Even if this bill passed and was signed into law, it’s hard to imagine how it could be Constitutional. The court that would overrule R v W would also correctly point out that Congress has no authority to create a right to abortion.
At least some democrats must realize this, which means they knew they were voting for a loser. That means there’s only one reason to even put it to a vote: Fund Raising.
I came to ask about exactly that. If the SCOTUS says that abortion isn’t a federal issue, then shouldn’t they say exactly the same thing if the federal legislature attempts to codify it?
How does that issue work out?
I tried my hand at explaining the mechanics of that here.
Do you remember how stunned Pelosi was when asked the same question about Obamacare?
Her answer show how unserious Ds are when taking their Article VI oaths. They believe Congress can do anything unless the Constitution expressly prevents them. This of course has it upset down.
Obamacare was “saved” by Roberts in a ruling that said it was a tax (even though throughout the passage process it was declared not to be a tax).
Of course this bill would not be constitutional, but look at how Ds would have upset the whole system of federalism by this stunt, requiring countless lawsuits and oodles of wasted time and money as suits work their way to the USSC where we hope the right result would be obtained. What a way to run a railroad.
Seems you have 49 Senators that need to be replaced.
A lot more than those 49. Add Mittens, Collins, Murkowski,
McConnell et alia,
to be replaced with people who mean the Article VI oath.
re: that photo,
Is the person on the left one of those birthing people?
The idiots at the AP decided to report the bill was filibustered, which is was not.
would someone kindly tell me the difference between the taking of a life at (just for example) three months prior to exiting the pregnant person’s body and thirty years thereafter
Manchin may not be an ally most of the time, he may not even be a decent person. He does, however, understand who the voters in his State are.
Collins and Murkowski practically begged Schumer to soften the bill just a bit so they could give in to their RINO impulses and vote for it.
In Manchin’s case, he probably told Schumer, “What part of NO don’t you understand?”
With Schumer, it’s “Plan Nine from Outer Space” over…and over…and over….