Patterico's Pontifications

5/10/2022

Senate To Vote On Abortion Legislation Tomorrow

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:24 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Chuck Schumer believes that forcing a vote on extreme abortion legislation-a right to abortion in all 50 states through the ninth month of pregnancy-will be a good thing for Democrats:

The U.S. Senate will vote on legislation to codify abortion rights into law on Wednesday in reaction to the leaked draft decision indicating the Supreme Court is poised to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Sunday.

“Every American will see how every senator stands,” Schumer said during a news conference with state leaders in New York. Republicans “can’t duck it anymore. Republicans have tried to duck it.”

Schumer called the draft decision an “abomination,” noting that a majority of Americans want to preserve the right to have an abortion and women’s health care.

Interestingly, Americans, including Democrats and Republicans, are not settled on the “through the ninth month,” nor on a number of issues surrounding abortion. Recently, a Pew Research poll (done before the leak of the Supreme Court draft) revealed the conflict Americans have about abortion and limits therein. Despite the effort of politicians, abortion is more complicated for Americans than the sort of through-the-ninth-month-or-nothing demand of Schumer and Democrats. While they play politics with the issue, I’m guessing that most people arrive at their decision regarding abortion by actually wrestling with the question of when life begins rather than willfully ignoring it. And there are other issues that demand a full examination and struggle of conscience by the individual: Do we want rape and incest victims to be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term? Given that it has been recognized that babies can feel pain inside the womb certainly during the middle and end stages of pregnancy, should that science be ignored? Also, shouldn’t it make a compelling difference on whether to abort when we know that babies can survive outside of the womb at 24 weeks?

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.

As in the past, more Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances (61%) than illegal in all or most circumstances (37%). But in many ways, the public’s attitudes are contingent upon such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a woman’s pregnancy, whether the pregnancy endangers a woman’s life and whether a baby would have severe health problems.

There is evidence that many people are cross-pressured on this issue. For example, more than half of Americans who generally support abortion rights – by saying it should be legal in “most” or “all” cases – also say the timing of an abortion (i.e., how far along the pregnancy is) should be a factor in determining its legality (56%).

At the same time, the survey shows that large numbers of Americans favor certain restrictions on access to abortions. For example, seven-in-ten say doctors should be required to notify a parent or legal guardian of minors seeking abortions. And most of those who say abortion should be legal in some cases and illegal in others say that how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in determining whether abortion is legal or illegal (56% among all U.S. adults).

The survey data shows that as pregnancy progresses, opposition to legal abortion grows and support for legal abortion declines…

At 14 weeks, the share saying abortion should be legal declines to 34%, while 27% say illegal and 22% say “it depends.”

When asked about the legality of abortion at 24 weeks of pregnancy (described as a point when a healthy fetus could survive outside the woman’s body, with medical attention), Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be illegal as to say it should be legal at this time point (43% vs. 22%), with 18% saying “it depends.”

However, in a follow-up question, 44% of those who initially say abortion should be illegal at this late stage go on to say that, in cases where the woman’s life is threatened or the baby will be born with severe disabilities, abortion should be legal at 24 weeks. An additional 48% answer the follow-up question by saying “it depends,” and 7% reiterate that abortion should be illegal at this stage of pregnancy even if the woman’s life is in danger or the baby faces severe disabilities.

A couple of things. First, given that Schumer wants to establish a right to abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy, how is that an accurate representation of Americans’ view of abortion? Clearly, the stage of pregnancy matters when discussing legal abortion. The farther along with the pregnancy, the less support for an abortion. But then again, we’ve always known that “safe, legal, and rare” was little more than a manipulative attempt to appease those genuinely conflicted about abortion.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, it’s good to have on record the current President of the United States (and de facto leader of the Democratic Party) say the quiet part out loud:

“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say no one can make a judgment to choose to abort a child based upon a decision by the Supreme Courts, I think goes way overboard.”

–Dana

76 Responses to “Senate To Vote On Abortion Legislation Tomorrow”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. Schumer and the other corporate establishment democrats again trying to prevent being discredited in the eyes of the party base saying see were doing something besides whining! AOC and the left taking over the democrat party which terrifies the corporate establishment do nothing leaders and their drones. Direct action now! says the democrat party base. Schumer: we will take a meaningless vote see we tried!

    asset (51f3d8)

  3. House to vote on $39.8 billion Ukraine aid bill Tuesday night – CBSNews

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-ukraine-aid-vote-39-8-billion/

    But Ukraine is a country where abortion is legal:

    ‘Abortion in Ukraine is legal on request during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, including medical, social and personal grounds, and for any reason with the approval of a commission of physicians…

    Near the end of a long interview in 2019 during his political campaign, Volodymyr Zelenskyy (now President of Ukraine) was asked about abortion rights. The interviewer mentioned to Zelenskyy that laws are often adopted in Eastern and Central Europe that cause public outcry, saying that in Poland, for example, there were huge protests when the Polish government wanted to ban abortion. Zelenskyy stated that abortion should not be banned, that to get an abortion is a personal choice, and that there needs to be less impingement on human freedom.’ – source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ukraine

    If you oppose the federally funding option/’freedom of choice’ of abortion- rationalize literally ‘giving’ the government of Ukraine w/civil and military aid.

    DCSCA (b74824)

  4. I’m weak-minded and insecure enough that I appreciate it when other bloggers agree with my analysis that Chuck Schumer is simply awful when it comes to strategy and playing the long game. He thinks he is going to trap Republicans on this, but he’s also going to be creating some real headaches for Senators from his own party facing reelection like Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Catherine Cortez Mastro, and Maggie Hassan, who are going to have to go on record as supporting what Dana rightly characterizes as “a right to abortion in all 50 states through the ninth month of pregnancy,” even though they represent states where that may be far from the dominant view. Thank you, Dana, for bolstering my claims.

    I also appreciate that Charlie Cooke at NRO agrees with me that Schumer is dragging his caucus down. As usual, he explains it for more eloquently than I:

    As historians have long wondered at the remarkable cosmic chance that led to John Lennon and Paul McCartney existing at the same time and in the same place, so political spectators might someday come to marvel at the rank misfortune that has led the Democratic Party to be saddled simultaneously with Joe Biden as president and Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader. Week in and week out, Schumer steps on rakes, and when there are no rakes left to step on, he has them flown in en masse. Effective caucus managers understand that there are only two good reasons to bring up a bill: to pass it, or to have it fail in a way that unites their side, divides their opponents, and advances their agenda in the court of public opinion. Almost without exception, Chuck Schumer doesn’t bring up bills for either of those reasons. He is, in his own way, a marvel.

    The perfect example of how the smartest (just ask him!) guys don’t always make the best leaders.

    JVW (020d31)

  5. I’m no fan of San Fran Nan as the Speaker of the House, but no way would she make a strategic mistake this egregious.

    JVW (020d31)

  6. The U.S. Senate will vote on legislation to codify abortion rights into law on Wednesday

    Senator Majority Leader Charles Schumer:

    “Every American will see how every senator stands,”

    This is a political strategy based entirely on ignorance and lies.

    Ignorance of the distinction between in power between the federal government and states. Lies and ignorance ignorance of how most Senators stand on abortion. Statements about abortion should be on their websites.

    But they want to use a single metric for advertisements and fundraising and also probably part of their strategy is based on the idea that their opponents are lying.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  7. 3.

    But Ukraine is a country where abortion is legal:

    It’s not anti-abortion Poland that is waging war on Ukraine.

    I suppose you could point out that refugees going to Poland won’t be able to get an abortion there -so Right-to-Lifers should be in favor of more Russian attacks because so as to cause more Ukrainian refugees to go to in Poland.

    And “pro choice” people should be in favor of admitting anyone who is in Mexico who wants an abortion to go the United States because it is mostly illegal in Mexico and women can go to jail.

    They can’t wait. And some pregnancies could be the result of rape
    by human traffickers. Right?

    The recent Mexican Supreme Court ruling does not automatically go int effect on a national level there, and besides it only prevents women from being prosecuted

    https://www.npr.org/2021/09/07/1034925270/mexico-abortion-decriminalized-supreme-court.

    Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish abortion as a crime, a landmark ruling that clears the way for the legalization of abortion across the country.

    The court took up the issue on Monday when eight of 11 justices voted to revoke a law in the state of Coahuila that punished women with up to three years in prison for having an abortion — even in cases of rape. The other three justices joined in the decision Tuesday, declaring such laws unconstitutional.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  8. By the way, note that the Reuters article to which Dana links focuses entirely on the abortion-rights side of the debate and the two pictures included are both from supporters of abortion. Reuters couldn’t even rouse themselves to get a quote from the pro-life side or from a Republican Senator who opposes Schumer’s legislation. That’s modern journalism for you.

    JVW (020d31)

  9. @5. Chuck’s just desperate and throwing up chaff. They have internals. They know what’s coming at them in November: total devastation.

    ” I must tell you what my people tell me. No matter what you do… at least one of the planes will get through to the target.” – The President [Henry Fonda] ‘Fail-Safe’ 1964

    DCSCA (b74824)

  10. As I’ve said, probably ad nauseum, for the last 50 years all this has been posturing and few voters outside the barricades took much notice.

    Last year New Mexico’s legislature passed, and the Governor signed, an absolute right to elective abortion through the 9th month. There is even a clinic that will do it, at least through week 32 (and later “if warranted”).

    This was greeted by *yawn*. No one cared and it was basically reported as “repealing the old prohibition on abortion in case Roe v Wade falls.”

    But now … now the governor and legislature are up for election, in a 40% Roman Catholic state, where kids and families are important. This is a strange hill they choose to die on.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  11. More on Reuters, since this is so aggravating to me. They have an article from yesterday titled “Suburban Phoenix is cautionary tale for Democrats hoping to galvanize voters on abortion” (why media outlets no longer capitalize all of the words in a title is beyond my comprehension) which at first sounds like it will be a fair summation of the deep divide about abortion which exists in this country. Yet soon enough, the reporter falls back on the old shopworn abortion rights talking points such as, “A majority of Americans – roughly 70% – believe abortion should be legal in most cases, polls say.”

    This is of course factually wrong, and the Reuters people may even know it, but it is the kind of garbage straight from Planned Parenthood that gets duly reported by a media which is not interested in objective reporting where abortion is concerned. Forbes has a pretty good summation of where most abortion polls are, though even they can’t help but try to shade the results to make abortion seem more broadly popular than it really is. For instance, they make a hash of various poll results with this analysis:

    Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May 2021, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.

    It never occurs to them whether it truly makes sense for abortion support to allegedly have gone from 47% support thirteen years ago to (supposedly) 80% support just last year. Apparently they haven’t given any consideration to how the question might have been phrased across all those different years, or how outside events might have impacted what people might have reported. For instance, back in 2009 when support had dropped so low, the Obama Administration was pushing Obamacare, and one of the most controversial aspects of that legislation was whether abortion coverage would be mandated and/or subsidized in the law. Just as one year ago it was announced that the Supreme Court would hear the Dobbs case which likely put the idea of abortion bans in the public’s mind.

    This has been pointed out in lots of venues, mostly by pro-life people, but when the simple question of “Do you support the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade which established the right to abortion?” is asked then the American public usually supports it at close to that 70% level. However, when you start asking about practices that first Roe and then Casey v. Planned Parenthood have enshrined into law — late-term abortions, difficulty in imposing parental consent laws, etc. — most Americans generally disapprove of them. It goes to show that people have been conditioned by decades of media propaganda to support Roe in principle, but in practice they clearly want to see both it and Casey dialed back. But that conflicts with the message that the media wants to impart, that of a majority who supports abortion “in most cases,” so therefore they gladly muddle the message in their usual dishonest way.

    JVW (020d31)

  12. I predict that the MSM will not mention the scope of the bill.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  13. How many countries allow elective abortion in the 9th month?

    According to https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/ the mode limit on elective3 abortion is 12 weeks.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  14. The only 3 countries where one can get an elective abortion after 24 weeks are: The USA, Red China and North Korea. In the latter two, abortions can be forced by the state. In theory Canada would be included as there is no federal rule, but no province allows it after 24 weeks.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  15. Schumer is an idiot, probably my least favorite Democrat now that Harry Reid has expired. There was a lament recently on either The Dispatch or Bulwark about the lack of leadership in our country…and just this continued willingness to play politics. Now I get the urge in this case….Democrats can read polls and smell an advantage on this issue during a cycle that looks horrible for them. But for Schumer to so badly out-punt his coverage….even with a compliant media…and an electorate willing to be spun unmercilessly, just shows where we are at. I get the complaints we see here at Patterico….I just hope someone is brave enough in Washington at some point to lead courageously….and then get rewarded. Hey, I can dream.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  16. I just hope someone is brave enough in Washington at some point to lead courageously….and then get rewarded.

    I get it when we elect an idiot to office in this country, because we voters have shown plenty of times in the past that we’re not particularly discerning in this regard. But Chuck Schumer was elected by a vote of his own Senate peers, specifically his Democrat Senate peers. The fact that they obviously must see how rotten he is at leadership yet continue to let him stay on suggests to me that nobody else wants the job.

    JVW (020d31)

  17. Given that Senate Republicans won’t even consider a national abortion ban, who cares what they think?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  18. JVW (020d31) — 5/10/2022 @ 3:07 pm

    The fact that they obviously must see how rotten he is at leadership yet continue to let him stay on suggests to me that nobody else wants the job.

    Schumer probably just lined up endorsements in advance including Harry Reid, and now he’s the incumbent.

    You don’t get leadership changes in Albany, either, except when the incumbent loses his seat for one reason or another. Schumer wasa member of the Assembly before his election to Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  19. If they could legislate abortion rights nationwide, why didn’t they do it before? When Mississippi passed the 15-week law? When Texas passed the 6-week law?

    for the last 50 years all this has been posturing and few voters outside the barricades took much notice.

    Right on, Kevin!

    nk (d02dfa)

  20. Schumer called the draft decision an “abomination,” noting that a majority of Americans want to preserve the right to have an abortion and women’s health care.

    It isn’t the Supreme Court’s job to decide cases based on what a majority of Americans want, you dumb ass.

    norcal (3f02c4)

  21. Democrats can read polls and smell an advantage on this issue during a cycle that looks horrible for them. But for Schumer to so badly out-punt his coverage….even with a compliant media…and an electorate willing to be spun unmercilessly, just shows where we are at.

    That strikes me as the crux of it. It would have been so easy, and probably politically effective, to just codify Roe. Yet he opts to pander, at as JVW suggests, the likely cost of the last shred of Dem hope of holding the Senate.

    I’d love to know his thinking. He obviously isn’t as good at this as McConnell, but he’s not stupid. I can’t believe he’d do this without a semblance of calculation. Maybe he believes the Senate is lost regardless, and the losses would be even worse if failing to take the maximalist position caused abortion extremists to stay home and sit out the election entirely? They certainly are a petulant lot, so maybe he’s right?

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  22. I think all Schumer is thinking of is campaign fundraising and that this will ade into the background after the legislation fails, except it ca be used in targeted ads and to get out the vote.(and that only the people for legal abortion will care)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  23. Schumer is past the point of worrying about a primary n New York State, but he may want to solidify his relationship with the “progressives” for some reason.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/politics/chuck-schumer.html

    …Appearing live via video, he showed up at an inauguration celebration in December for the New York City Council’s most prominent incoming left-wing member, Tiffany Cabán, who took the oath of office with the help of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    Schumer’s attendance was in some ways just another stop on his always-packed New York itinerary. But the moment also vividly illustrated why — barring some extraordinary development — Schumer has attracted no serious left-wing challenger to his Senate re-election bid as Thursday’s primary filing deadline arrives, despite months of speculation about who might emerge.

    “He’s been really relational,” said Cabán, who is a favorite of the New York City Democratic Socialists. “He shows up.” ….

    ….In the Buffalo mayor’s race, he endorsed the Democratic nominee, a democratic socialist, while other prominent elected officials stayed on the sidelines (the candidate lost, but good will for Schumer remains). And in New York and nationally, he loudly champions progressive priorities including canceling student debt.

    More broadly, he helped secure significant federal aid for New York, he has an overwhelming fund-raising advantage and polls show that he is popular at home. Challenging him in a pricey statewide race would be a daunting task….

    …. Schumer received his party’s backing by acclamation at the Democratic convention. And he secured the endorsement of the left-wing New York Working Families Party.

    “Chuck Schumer is everywhere, he always will be,” said Angelo Roefaro, Schumer’s spokesman. “Plain and simple: omnipresence.”

    Maybe he’s working on the 2028 election.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  24. Sammy, I think the bit you included about how Schumer remains popular in New York is just further evidence that a party is stupid to draw their legislative leadership from states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, etc. What is acceptable there might not pass muster in the smaller states. For my money, the best Senate Majority Leader the Dems had in my lifetime was either Mike Mansfield of Montana or George Mitchell of Maine, and — incredible as it may sound — the third best was probably Tom Daschle of South Dakota, even though he only had the job for 18 months. As far as the GOP goes, the best have been Cocaine Mitch of Kentucky and the Kansan, Bob Dole.

    JVW (020d31)

  25. the Dims are no longer a rational party that can be worked with, so much for that weak RINOS and their ‘reach across the aisle’ nonsense.

    mg (8cbc69)

  26. Comrades, you must put aside any stress about how to afford groceries and still fill your gas tank, there are people in the government of Ukraine who need your tax dollars more.
    FMM

    mg (8cbc69)

  27. I predict that the MSM will not mention the scope of the bill.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 2:41 pm

    The larger ones will, if only to make a pretense of objectivity, but they’ll bury it later in the article.

    It’s always necessary to point out, when the abortion maximalists claim that over 60% of the country support abortion, the other fact is that 80% support at least some sort of restriction on the practice. The problem is that the other 20% reside in the nation’s newsrooms, universities, billionaire-funded NGOs, and the entertainment industry, and that’s why the culture war is getting so hot–because the Cathedral is actually at odds with most of the nation.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  28. But now … now the governor and legislature are up for election, in a 40% Roman Catholic state, where kids and families are important. This is a strange hill they choose to die on.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 2:35 pm

    I’d honestly be shocked if it had any impact at all, even with the Hispanic vote nationwide trending in the Republicans’ direction. New Mexicans are incredibly conservative when it comes to their political habits, not necessarily their politics, and your average family in the South Valley or the Warzone, for example, isn’t going to give a rip if the state Dems passed a nine-month abortion law or not. Most of the white migration in to the state the last 10-15 years, especially in Albuquerque, has been of the leftist neo-yuppie variety; the whole point of Egolf getting elevated to the Speaker seat was to push through a hard-left political agenda that those people in particular would support, and they’ve been wildly successful. Native New Mexicans will continue to vote Democrat out of sheer habit, even if they find the abortion law distasteful. The state GOP in particular is even more useless than California’s or Colorado’s–the only really effective politicians they’ve had in the last 15-20 years are Heather Wilson and Steve Schiff, and no one has stepped up who has their acumen.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  29. They tried to red-flag people’s guns last year, and closed all the gun stores during the shutdown(s). The sheriffs of every county but the four you could name refused to carry out the red-flag law, which got the governor all stompy-foot. Then those counties declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. More stompy-foot.

    You may be right about inertia, and Trump has done the NM GOP no favors (e.g. telling people not to send in absentee ballots). But a woman died at that 3rd-trimester abortion mill last year.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  30. You may be right about inertia, and Trump has done the NM GOP no favors (e.g. telling people not to send in absentee ballots). But a woman died at that 3rd-trimester abortion mill last year.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/10/2022 @ 7:49 pm

    I’m certainly open to changing my assessment if the activists try pulling the same stunt at St. Francis de Neri as those balloonheads did at Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. The people attending that church aren’t really going to take kindly to a bunch of gringas and pretentious college kids interrupting their service to screech about abortion.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  31. House approves nearly $40 billion in aid to Ukraine as it fights off Russian aggression

    ‘The House on Tuesday approved nearly $40 billion in additional aid for Ukraine as the country battles Russia’s brutal invasion, now in its third month.

    The package of military, economic and humanitarian support, which is $7 billion more than the $33 billion President Biden requested, was approved on a bipartisan vote of 368-to-57, with the Senate expected to follow suit this week.

    So much for fiscal conservatism. Remember that the next time your state is denied federal aid due to a natural disaster. This is money the United States does not have, borrowed from a Chinese adversary who has Uncle Sam by the short and curlies to “give” to a corrupt country on par with Russia who do not pay any U.S. taxes, abort babies as part of their national policy and kill Russians while turing their own country into rubble. It’s insane U.S. policy. And don’t be surprised if buried in the legislation is language that diverts funds to domestic programs after a certain time if unused to back door any Biden ‘Build Back Better’ programs.

    Both these irresponsible parties are watering the tree of American Populism. And you wonder why ‘folks’ picket protest the homes of bureaucrat judges… this is why they ‘storm the castle.’

    DCSCA (1d6e34)

  32. One of the abortion lobby’s biggest mistakes is to hold out for the most extreme demands. In most of the world, 20 to 24 weeks is the limit for elective abortions (only the PRC and NK have no limit, and in fact the State can “elect” it itself). But here, they talks as if it was just two seconds from back-alley coathangers to disallow third-trimester abortion on demand.

    Now that what people vote for mattes, the proper argument is to let them know what they are voting for, how unusual it is, and that they have a moral responsibility for that choice. I fully expect the Catholic Church to make its feelings known to its parishioners in this regard.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  33. These people have no shame:

    Yellen: Overturning Roe v. Wade would ‘have very damaging effects on the economy’

    See, we told you so .. you overturned Roe and the economy tanked. We’ll need to print more money!

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  34. Baby food shortage in America and Mitch sends funds to zelensky. Republicans really are pos.

    mg (8cbc69)

  35. How many mfing billions will we send to these people to rebuild the schiff hole country? While America rots.

    mg (8cbc69)

  36. The Senate bill looks very much like New York’s abortion-without-limits law to me. It has as much chance of passing nationwide as a New Yorker has to be elected President. Aw, shoot!

    nk (d02dfa)

  37. Not long ago a state legislature brought to the floor a bill to add “genders” to the choices listed for some purpose or another. (Who knows? Who cares?) An opponent then put forward a “friendly” amendment to add another option. Which was added. Then another amendment was forwarded, an approved. Then another. Then another. Then another. And with every amendment the ridiculous nature of the whole bill was revealed to be more obvious, and ultimately the thing crashed and burned.

    Were there even one savvy GOP senator a similar strategy should be attempted, not even requiring the amendments pass, but to get the “pro-choice” side firmly on the record. Free abortion rights — including the rights of the woman’s partner-in-marriage who must sign off. The rights of the grand-parents (all 4, if available) who must sign off. The rights of clinic workers to opt out of participating after 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, or 35 weeks. The property rights of “donor” mothers to full payment if any embryonic or fetal tissue is sold by the clinic to any bio/pharm researchers. The rights of unmarried teen mothers to protection from their abusive partners. A requirement to track the DNA of the fetus’s fathers to unmarried (at least, unmarried underage) mothers as evidence in prosecutions for rape. A right to a Second Opinion on the medical necessity paid for by the federal government, which must be documented before the procedure. A “freedom of information” right to the public on all the statistics of what age and race and nationality and gender-orientation of “Mothers” have obtained services. One reasonable amendment after another.

    How many “common sense” components of the law does the Senate majority care to vote against?

    Pouncer (2af20a)

  38. So much for fiscal conservatism. Remember that the next time your state is denied federal aid due to a natural disaster. …

    1. When was the last fiscally conservative political party/presidency (one that actually practiced fiscal conservatism)? Harding? Coolidge?

    2. When has a state been refused aid after a major disaster?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. @38. Pfft. Ask Cruz and Christie about Sandy. Ukraine is not a U.S. territory. and is not inhabited by U.S. taxpaying citizens. Over $50 billion has been borrowed from China to finance a long historied, regional conflict that is wealthy. modern Europe’s problem to manage. Congress has not declared war. SoD Austin insists this is not a ‘proxy war.’

    Except it is.

    DCSCA (114539)

  40. DCSCA says “Pfft” when he doesn’t (or can’t) answer a direct question.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  41. Yeah, I don’t want to hear from any party that border security is too expensive.

    They lost that fight after this.

    whembly (7e0293)

  42. DCSCA (114539) — 5/11/2022 @ 11:07 am

    Over $50 billion has been borrowed from China

    It’s not been bnorrrowed from China – it’s been borrowed from all over. And if it were borrowed from China that would be a good thing, as it would give China a stake in the well being of the United States and would be money they couldn’t spend on other things.

    to finance a long historied, regional conflict that is wealthy. modern Europe’s problem to manage.

    Not only Europe, and the United States is joined with Europe in a major military alliance.

    Congress has not declared war.

    A legal status that is not good

    But it wants to spend money, and not only for military aid but also humanitarian aid, refugee assistance (mostly outside the United States) and even aid to countries in Africa and elsewhere that will experience higher prices of grain.

    You put together majorities in Conngres by letting evrrybody contribute ideas for spending money.

    SoD Austin insists this is not a ‘proxy war.’

    Except it is.

    What’s so terrible about that?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  43. whembly (7e0293) — 5/11/2022 @ 1:00 pm

    Yeah, I don’t want to hear from any party that border security is too expensive.

    It’s not merely too expensive, and kills people — it’s impossible. Even when done by North Korea.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


  44. I predict that the MSM will not mention the scope of the bill.
    It did.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/us/politics/roe-v-wade-abortion-senate-vote.html

    It goes substantially further than codifying Roe v. Wade, laying out a lengthy list of prohibited restrictions and limits — many of which have been enacted by states, effectively putting abortion nearly or entirely out of reach. For instance, it would bar mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.

    The legislation also would allow courts to consider several factors when deciding whether a restriction would infringe on abortion rights, including whether it would increase the costs of providing or obtaining abortion services, including those associated with travel, child care or taking time off work.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  45. I read the attacks on schumer by anti-abortion and just conservatives here that he is doing a bad job. What ignorance. You don’t understand what his job is in the democrat party. Schumer’s job for the corporate establishment democrat party led by the D.N.C. is to prevent AOC and the left base of the party from taking over the democrat party. Schumer must be seen to be fighting for abortion rights so he and the corporate establishment democrats won’t be completely discredited when they fail as clinton was in 2016. This is about democrat party internal politics. AOC and the left must be stopped from taking over the democrat party at all cost says their corporate and deep state masters. You are to ignorant of internal democrat party infighting. Both the clinton/biden wing and the AOC left wing of the party are fighting for control with the minorities in the party middle trying to decide which group to support. Play it safe or join the revolution. Your ignorance is somewhat surprising as this occured in the republican party with populists taking over the party from ecomomic free trade libertarian conservatives. Remember dave brat did it before AOC.

    asset (c28c15)

  46. The Murkowski/Collins bill merely attempts to enact the status quo (Casey) but abortion rights groups don’t like it because they don’t like the status quo.

    The two Senate Republicans who support abortion rights, Senators Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have raised objections to the Democrats’ bill, noting that it would bar state laws that require certain materials to be given to abortion patients or those that require parental or guardian notification for minors seeking to terminate their pregnancies.

    Ms. Collins said she opposed the Democrats’ bill partly because it lacks an exception to give Catholic hospitals the right to refuse to perform abortions, in line with their religious beliefs.

    The Women’s Health Protection Act would not require any hospital system or doctor to provide abortion services, Democrats note. But critics worry that because it lacks an explicit exception for religious institutions, it could open them up to lawsuits or a loss of federal funding if they refused to provide abortion services.

    That is basically a claim that anew law or alawsuit could require it. That would require anew law, but they wouldn’t have to repeal a conscience clause if it were in it – and if they are in favor of that, why object?

    More:

    .A narrow Republican alternative would provide limited protections. Last February, Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski introduced their own bill, the Reproductive Choice Act, which they describe as codifying Roe v. Wade.

    I think it would better described as codifying Casey – or attempting to do so since we’re ignoring federalism,

    The bill is only three pages long and was written without the consultation of reproductive rights groups, according to representatives from those organizations.

    The legislation is simple: It would declare that states cannot impose an “undue burden” on the ability to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, borrowing key language from the Casey decision.

    But reproductive rights advocates have said it leaves too much unsaid and lacks clear guidance about what states can and cannot do, leaving vital decisions in the hands of courts that have become increasingly hostile to abortion rights. The measure does not explicitly rule out abortion bans before a fetus is viable or bar any specific prohibitions on abortion methods.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  47. For instance, it is not clear that the bill would prohibit a ban like the one that is currently before the Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which involves a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The measure would leave the door open for proponents to argue that such a ban is not an “undue burden.”

    This is most likely what Chief Justice John Roberts wants to rule.

    Democrats and groups like Planned Parenthood contend that the bill would invite states to continue to restrict abortion care. The legislation says that states “may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy,” language that they said was similar to what is currently used to justify abortion restrictions across the country.

    The bill’s sponsors say they are merely trying to preserve the status quo.

    Which is Casey, not Roe

    “Unlike some progressive activists, Senators Collins and Murkowski want the law today to be the law tomorrow,” said Annie Clark, a spokeswoman for Ms. Collins. She added that those who took issue with the bill “must also disagree with Roe and Casey.”

    And they do – with abortion law as it has come to be interpreted.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  48. The Democrats removed some things from the Senate bill (not to have it pass, obviously, but to achieve unanimity or close to unanimity in their caucus.)

    What was in it that they took out?

    They stripped out a lengthy series of findings, including passages that referred to abortion restrictions as “a tool of gender oppression.” [!] Also scrapped was a section clarifying that while the bill referred to women, it was meant to protect the rights of “every person capable of becoming pregnant,” including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. {!!?]

    Well, they have a point. People who can get pregnant were born as women, but some are no longer classified that way by their state governments.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  49. Rip Murdock:

    1. When was the last fiscally conservative political party/presidency (one that actually practiced fiscal conservatism)? Harding? Coolidge?

    2. When has a state been refused aid after a major disaster?

    DCSCA Ask Cruz and Christie about Sandy.

    What one Senator said he wanted to do does not mean Congress did. Which said Senator later claimed (perhaps true) did not reflect opposition to disaster aid for Sandy:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/chris-christie-won-t-let-ted-cruz-escape-sandy-storm-n797486

    Chris Christie issued a blistering verbal takedown of Ted Cruz for insisting that he supported Hurricane Sandy aid in 2013, when he vote against relief.

    Christie was referring to an MSNBC interview earlier this week, where Cruz, standing in a Texas disaster relief center, defended his 2013 vote, claiming the Sandy aid bill had “unrelated pork” and “two-thirds of that bill had nothing to do with Sandy.”

    “The accurate thing to say is that I and a number of others enthusiastically and emphatically supported hurricane relief for Sandy,” Cruz told MSNBC Monday. “It’s not right for politicians to exploit a disaster when people are hurting to pay for their own political wish list.”

    But Christie wasn’t having it.

    “It is an absolute, outright falsehood,” Christie told CNN, referring to Cruz’s “two-thirds” claim.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  50. 26. mg (8cbc69) — 5/10/2022 @ 5:57 pm

    …stress about how to afford groceries and still fill your gas tank, there are people in the government of Ukraine who need your tax dollars more.

    Any person who has stress about how to afford groceries and still fill their gas tank, and all such persons put together are not paying more than a tiny fraction of federal income taxes paid.

    Social Security and Medicare taxes and perhaps a gasoline tax may hit them hard, but even if income taxes hit them hard, that’s not where the federal government gets its money/

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  51. Remember – Alito’s opinion could be a concurring opinion. And the leak could have been intended to be misleading. There may be no opinion signed by 6 justices.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  52. The draft might ben opinion of the court, but it, or psrts of it, could have become a concurring opinion

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  53. Alito’s opinion might also be the 6-3 decision, or even the 6-2 decision.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  54. 1. When was the last fiscally conservative political party/presidency (one that actually practiced fiscal conservatism)? Harding? Coolidge?

    Party? Reform, 1992.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  55. Basement Joe thinks our frustration tastes like chicken.

    mg (8cbc69)

  56. bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    Such a bill would be a liberalization in every country except Columbia, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden and Vietnam, along with China, North Korea, South Korea and the United States (where there are no clear limits)

    Most countries have limits of 12 weeks or less. Yet the 15 week bill is attacked with ultimate moral outrage here at home.

    I would love to see the Supreme Court, in an act of Roe-esque judicial power, set 12 weeks as the national limit, with only rare exceptions past that time.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  57. Basement Joe thinks our frustration tastes like chicken.

    Tofu.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  58. 50 – With respect to you Sammy, I disagree with the shakedown by Zelensky.

    mg (8cbc69)

  59. If you’re worried about US money going to corrupt officials in Ukraine don’t forget that they’ve got IMF loans that need to be serviced. Otherwise those poor people at the IMF will go hungry. You should consider yourself lucky that you can help with your tax dollars.

    frosty (8655b9)

  60. 1. When was the last fiscally conservative political party/presidency (one that actually practiced fiscal conservatism)? Harding? Coolidge?

    Party? Reform, 1992.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 5/11/2022 @ 2:43 pm

    I remember President Perot well.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  61. I would love to see the Supreme Court, in an act of Roe-esque judicial power, set 12 weeks as the national limit, with only rare exceptions past that time.

    ‘I would love to see the be-robed bureaucrats; the ‘Dancing Itos’ in waiting, FIND THE DAMN ALITRO DRAFT LEAKER. It has been 10 days. If they can’t keep track of a set of papers they sure as hell have no business ruling how 330 million ‘folks’ should live.’

    FIFY

    DCSCA (d0bfac)

  62. Durbin calls protests outside Supreme Court justices’ homes ‘reprehensible’
    ……..
    “I think it’s reprehensible. Stay away from homes and families of elected officials and members of the court,” the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman told CNN when he was asked about his thoughts on the protests.

    “You can express yourself, exercise your First Amendment rights, but to go after them at their homes, to do anything of a threatening nature, certainly anything violent, is absolutely reprehensible,” he added.
    ……..
    But Durbin maintained during his CNN interview that it is “over the line” to protest outside of an elected official’s home when he was asked about Schumer’s position.

    “I think when it comes to the home of an elected official, that’s over the line. It’s happened to me. I think it’s happened to most of us in elected position,” Durbin said. “If we want to bring women and men into this position accepting responsibility and sometimes controversy, we have to have reasonable lines drawn to respect their families.”
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  63. “I think when it comes to the home of an elected official, that’s over the line.

    Memo to Bureaucrat Durbin:

    You been asleep? ‘Cause American Populism is wide awake and quite intolerant of government screw-ups these days and NONE of tghis would be happenning if the be-robed bureaucrats could keep track of a few pieces of paper. Why do you think Trump won in the first place? Guess bureaucrat Durbin has never had their boss badger them at home over the phone which can happen in that private sector thingy regularly– as most people with bosses want to keep their jobs.

    DCSCA (d0bfac)

  64. What happens to weapons sent to Ukraine? The US doesn’t really know

    Washington (CNN)The US has few ways to track the substantial supply of anti-tank, anti-aircraft and other weaponry it has sent across the border into Ukraine, sources tell CNN, a blind spot that’s due in large part to the lack of US boots on the ground in the country — and the easy portability of many of the smaller systems now pouring across the border.

    It’s a conscious risk the Biden administration is willing to take.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/politics/us-weapons-ukraine-intelligence/index.html

    Kiss another borrowed $40 billion bye-bye.

    DCSCA (d0bfac)

  65. Originally posted on the wrong thread:

    Roberts may face roadblocks in probe of Roe leak, reporter who published it says
    ……..
    “It’s not clear he has the right to order anybody to cooperate,” said Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico and lead author of last week’s bombshell story, in an interview on the Yahoo News “Skullduggery” podcast.
    ……..
    “If one justice were to hypothetically say, ‘My clerks are not going to be interviewed. I’m not going to be interviewed. We’ll see you later,’ it’s not clear to me [Roberts] can tell them, ‘I’m sorry, Justice blank, you have to do this.’ Under what authority?”
    …….
    There’s been much speculation that Roberts’s directive could lead to a full-scale FBI probe and even a grand jury subpoena for Gerstein and Politico. “I think it’s pretty clear there is at least enough for a grand jury to investigate,” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA law school, told the New York Times. “The interesting question is to what extent there’s going to be a subpoena to a reporter.”

    But as Gerstein pointed out, the 98-page draft opinion published by Politico was not a classified document and did not contain sensitive personal information like Social Security numbers that would make it illegal to publish. ……
    ……….

    The best way to stop leaks is to imprison a few reporters.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  66. The leftists that run the Democrat party are all for infanticide. That’s what today’s vote proves.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  67. How the leak might have happened
    …….[T]he motives of the leaker are an important topic because they help explain why an institution that zealously guards its secrets suddenly seems porous.

    Start from the premise that there were actually (at least) two leakers, and three leaks. The first leak was to the Wall Street Journal editorial board last week. In substance, it was that the court had voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, but that the precise outcome remains in doubt because Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to persuade either Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a more moderate position that would uphold the Mississippi abortion restriction without formally overturning Roe.

    While not formally presented as relying on a leak, the editorial transparently does. The most obvious example is that it predicts that Alito is drafting a majority opinion to overrule Roe, but gives no explanation for that prediction and none is apparent. We now know that Alito did draft that opinion.

    The second leak was to Politico. …….

    The third leak was also to Politico. It was presumably – but not certainly – by the same person. Someone provided them with Alito’s Feb. 10 draft opinion.
    ………
    Here is what you would conclude is the state of play if you took all the leaks as both accurate and pretty complete (assumptions that, admittedly, are by no means certain). Alito’s opinion probably has been joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Barrett have yet to join – most likely because they are waiting to consider an alternative opinion from the chief justice.

    In these circumstances, which ideological side would think it benefits from leaking the opinion? It seems to me, that is the left…….

    The question here is who believed they would benefit from leaking the opinion itself. That document was much more likely to rally liberals than conservatives. It brought home the fact that the court was poised to overrule Roe in much more concrete terms than merely leaking the vote. The opinion is also a full-throated attack on abortion rights and – with important caveats – substantive due process rights more broadly. …….
    ………
    ………There has been some speculation that turns on a supposed relationship (of the leaker) with Josh Gerstein, the Politico legal affairs reporter who is the lead author on their story. It seems to me that the leak very likely runs instead through the other reporter with a byline on the story: Alexander Ward, who is a national security reporter. ……. I cannot think of a reason that Ward would have been on the story other than that the leaker communicated through him, not Gerstein. And Politico would have felt compelled to give Ward a byline on such a historic scoop.
    #########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  68. @67. How the leak did happen

    In a closed system of less than 50 people cloaked in rules, rega and obsessive secrecy, the be-robed bureaucrats can’t keep track of a few pieces of paper.

    DCSCA (e28470)

  69. It’s not merely too expensive, and kills people — it’s impossible. Even when done by North Korea.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/11/2022 @ 1:17 pm

    This cannot pass without challenge. This is assertion without evidence. Prove it or retract this statement Sammy.

    Your open borders beliefs do not trump reality.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  70. I’m not sure that it proves even that, NJRob. Only half a dozen states* that I know of have an abortion law that is as extreme as what Schumer put up. If this had been a real vote, with any possibility of passing, I doubt that it would have gotten even two dozen votes. But the Democrats knew that their vote was only symbolic, so they postured to humor Schumer.

    *Alaska is one of those states, and the bill did not get Murkowski’s vote, for example. That’s how “New York values” the thing was.

    nk (e95379)

  71. @67: I posted that almost a week ago.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  72. nk, as I said. Posturing. While making the scope of their law as vague as possible.

    In November, the voters will get to make an actual choice. Remember, in most of the world abortion after 12 weeks is hard to come by.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  73. Justices To Meet For 1st Time Since Leak Of Draft Roe Ruling

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s nine justices will gather in private for their first scheduled meeting since the leak of a draft opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade and sharply curtail abortion rights in roughly half the states.

    The meeting Thursday in the justices’ private, wood-paneled conference room could be a tense affair in a setting noted for its decorum. No one aside from the justices attends and the most junior among them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is responsible for taking notes.’ -AP

    https://hosted.ap.org/thetimes-tribune/article/299fafc4818a63b34bcfaba75f54df4a/justices-meet-1st-time-leak-draft-roe-ruling.com

    First meeting since ‘the leak.’ So much for the urgency and immediacy of restoring “integrity.”

    Incompetent; lazy; bureaucrats.

    DCSCA (660715)

  74. As expected, it was played as “restoring Roe.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  75. There’s a lot of speculation about “what will fall next” but the truth of the matter is that Roe/Casey fell because, 50 years on, they were still hotly debated. Even time there was a confirmation hearing, Roe took front and center. When senators are asking prospective justices “Is [a 50 year old case] settled law?” it is almost ironic. The question answers itself.

    What is settled law? Griswold. Loving. Lawrence. Obergefell. None of them have created the kind of long-term hostility and political partisanship as has Roe. Given the absence of that, and the absence of the moral dilemma abortion presents, I see no good reason for the Court to revisit them.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  76. As expected, it was played as “restoring Roe.”

    And 49-51 is played as “60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster” in the media. Sigh.

    nk (174b23)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1864 secs.