Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.

“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”

She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    746·
    4 months ago

    Why didn’t anyone think to do this 16 years ago? Back when we were all getting health care?

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
      674·
      4 months ago

      I’m once again going to steal these comments from one I had saved a month ago, penned by @MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world :

      Since 1981 Democrats have had control of the Presidency and Congress a whopping 4 years. One 2 year period under Clinton and one under Obama. That’s without factoring in the ability to fillibuster in the Senate. In over 40 years they’ve only had control 10% of the time.

      and

      That period of filibuster-proof control during Obama’s term is why we have the ACA. It was ~70 days and they passed the largest healthcare overhaul in generations.

      Sounds like they were a little busy with the ACA.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        13·
        4 months ago

        A really good point. People upset that democrats don’t do anything when we have power, it’s because republicans are bad faith actors hell bent on fighting any and all progress, but especially when that progress could be attributed to democrats. Their contribution to governance can be surmised as cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      142·
      4 months ago

      For a couple reasons. Some cynically wanted to continue to use abortion as a political football. Codifying Roe in any meaningful way in their minds would have meant they had to find a new wedge issue to drive turnout and donations. We saw this on the other side when SCOTUS actually overturned it and the right didn’t know what to do with themselves for a while.

      Then maybe in part because of the former, there were a bunch of people that naively didn’t believe they’d actually entirely destroy Roe. They genuinely thought the worst that could possibly happen was some minor restrictions at the margins. So those people were not motivated enough to actually do something about it.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
        32·
        4 months ago

        Then maybe in part because of the former, there were a bunch of people that naively didn’t believe they’d actually entirely destroy Roe.

        As someone in their fifties, I’ve thought the matter was settled and the bleating of random protesters was just the status quo of abortion in the US for decades, FWIW.

        And lets not forget this aspect of the conservative scotus.

        • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          3·
          4 months ago

          Yep. Now I’m not gonna lie, I didn’t think they’d actually fully overturn Roe in the Dobbs decision either. I figured upholding the 15 week or whatever ban with maybe some meaningless language about exceptions beyond that time was the most likely outcome from Dobbs. But I wasn’t at all surprised when it happened. I knew as soon as they had a good excuse to do it they’d overturn Roe.