The legislation, which states that “protections for access to abortion rights ... should be supported," was blocked by Republicans who panned it as a "show vote."

The legislation, which states that “protections for access to abortion rights … should be supported," was blocked by Republicans who panned it as a “show vote.”

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation led by Democrats to revive the protections of Roe v. Wade in the wake of the Supreme Court eliminating the nationwide right to abortion.

The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster due to broad opposition from Republicans, who dismissed it as a political stunt.

The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act, introduced last month around the second anniversary of the court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, is just a few sentences long. It states that “protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care” after the 2022 ruling “should be supported.” It adds that “the protections enshrined in* Roe v. Wade …* should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
    52·
    22 days ago

    The vote was 49-44, falling short of the super-majority needed to defeat a filibuster

    I know the filibuster has been nerfed down to sending an email that says “I filibuster this”, but why don’t they actually make them work for it?

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      361·
      22 days ago

      They’re too old now, they don’t have the energy to stand and talk for hours so they just “declare” the filibuster and go home for tapioca and Gold Bond.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
        32·
        22 days ago

        All the more reason to make them work for it. If they can’t stand on and defend their principles, then they need to get out of the way and at least let things come up for a vote.

        • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
          21·
          22 days ago

          The filibuster should also require the person to stay on topic, so no reading “Green eggs and ham” to run out the clock unless the book is relevant to the legislation.

          Or better yet, just ditch it because requiring a majority of two chambers and the presidents signature (or overwhelming support in both chambers) is a high enough bar to meet already.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      23·
      22 days ago

      The reasoning was that in the old style of filibuster no other senate business was possible. In theory was supposed to help the senate be more productive. In practice, it’s made the filibuster even more powerful. If a party was holding up all legislation and other functions of the senate by grandstanding for something stupid, that could hurt them politically, especially if it got bad enough that the military was being impacted or there were government shutdowns. So maybe they would think twice if it was worth a filibuster. Now they can kind of do it risk free. I think if you saw, government shutdown caused by Republicans trying to prevent abortion protections, well it’d be pretty unpopular with most Americans. And they’d pay for it in the polls. Or maybe not even do the filibuster in the first place.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      311·
      22 days ago

      They can do away with it by a simple majority vote, but republicans won’t when they have 50 because they use it all the time…

      And when Dems have 50 they won’t because that’s moderates best excuse for never fucking doing anything.