U.S. Senate to vote Wednesday on abortion rights bill, Schumer says
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 64 commentsBy: Lisa Shumaker and Daniel Wallis (YahooNews)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(Reuters) -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."
The Democrat said he will file cloture on Monday and the 100-seat chamber will vote on the bill on Wednesday.
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 heath care.
"Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing justices. Choice should not be up to a handful of right-wing politicians. It's a woman's right. Plain and simple," he said.
Last week a draft decision was leaked showing a majority of the country's top court would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the legal precedent ensuring abortion access for Americans.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
In the meantime it will be threats & intimidation.
potentially worse than that. a nation more divided than prior to the last civil war, a specific demographic trying to restrict civil rights for women by claiming it's about states rights, and using religious dogma as a basis to do so. whatever, I'm ready.
“…a specific demographic trying to restrict civil rights for women…”
A demographic large (re: conservative opportunists) and more importantly, a demographic small, as in the SCOTUS…both seriously out of touch with the majority.
In 2020 democrats won the presidency, held onto the House and found an unusual way to a tie in the Senate. Here is their chance to use the majority of the people, they claim to have, to pass a law legalizing abortion.
And here is the chance for the republicans, representing a minority of people, to block that law legalizing abortion.
it's a senate referendum on equal rights versus federalist theocracy and any senator that votes against it, and is on the ballot in november, will be bludgeoned with that vote in their midterm campaigns.
Unfortunately, republican voters have shown time after time, that they don't give a crap about who or what they vote for, as long as there is an "(R)" after the name.
Some of us recognize that applies equally to both parties and simply refuse to pretend otherwise.
Thus, Pelosi saying things like "A glass of water with a "D" behind it could win in those districts" in reference to AOC.
Chuckie, I dare say the majority of Americans want lower taxes, too. What have you done to ensure they get their way?
If it's what the majority wants this should be an easy vote yesterday. It's funny that Obama had a democrat congress in his first two years. Why do you suppose Obama didn't get abortion codified?
Schumer doesn't really want that to happen, which is why he's pushing for a codification that expands abortion even further than Roe. It has no chance of passing. But he can say he "tried" and keep the issue alive because its the only thing his voters can support right now.
Why not?
[deleted]
Why not?
The majority of Americans aren't in favor of the Biden/Schumer abortion until birth position.
The Mississippi bill, with a cutoff at 15 weeks except for the life of the mother, could possibly pass , as that is where the majority of Americans are. But that's the last thing Schumer or the fanatics who fill his purse want. .
Your comments are becoming more and more over the top. Are you alright?
Somebody needs to get a grip!
Please prove that.
I'm sick of people saying that women abort right up until birth or after.
It's ridiculous.
Support for 15-Week Abortion Ban Outweighs Opposition, WSJ Poll Finds - WSJ
Majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases, poll says (yahoo.com)
Ridiculous but legal in Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado and DC.
I'll bet she didn't know that.
And refuses to believe it!
I can't read that article. Can you clip the part that supports what you said?
This chart says otherwise:
This gives the general synopsis and is not behind a paywall
I'm not seeing where there are states that allow full-term abortions. Are you talking about partial-birth abortions?
This is what I responded to.
From my link:
I believe this proves what you asked for.
States with no gestational age restrictions:
What did you leave out?
That the mother's health is in danger or that the fetus is not viable?
I'm sure you leave out the facts where the mother's life must be in danger or the fetus is not viable.
Because no one ever thought that it would be overturned.
What part of "No gestational age restrictions" don't you understand?
Click on the link and then read it.
Prove it then.
[deleted]
From your citation
"Alabama
With Roe: Abortion available up to 20 weeks
Without Roe: Abortion banned (pre-1973 abortion ban in place)
Alaska
With Roe: No gestational age restrictions
Without Roe: Unclear
Arizona
With Roe: Abortion available up to viability*
Without Roe: Abortion banned (pre-1973 abortion ban in place)
* A new law is set to outlaw abortion after 15 weeks, effective this summer.
Arkansas
With Roe: Abortion available up to 20 weeks
Without Roe: Abortion banned (pre-1973 abortion ban in place)
California
With Roe: Abortion available up to viability
Without Roe: Abortion protected by state law prior to viability
Colorado
With Roe: No gestational age restrictions
Without Roe: Abortion protected by state law throughout pregnancy
Connecticut
With Roe: Abortion available up to viability
Without Roe: Abortion protected by state law prior to viability"
Why wouldn't you say it wasn't included - the health of the mother at risk or the fetus is not viable?
What exactly do you think "No gestational age restrictions" means?
To me, that means NO RESTRICTIONS based on gestational age.
Please explain YOUR definition.
I doubt that seriously.
Democrats and Republicans have long made abortion a litmus test.
No need to do that ever if no one thought it could be overturned.
Certainly no need for Schumer to ay the following:
As someone that lives in CT I can say there will be no difference with or without Roe.
Way to make it about yourself! How about the women in 26 states who are losing their right to bodily autonomy in a few weeks?
It was a response to someone that posted about the state I live in and know so I posted about it. I was not making it about myself. I do not live in the other states she mentioned so did not post about them.
What is your problem?
Connecticut
With Roe: Abortion available up to viability
Without Roe: Abortion protected by state law prior to viability"
In most of the landmass of the US abortions will be criminal offenses subject to fines and incarceration for the women and those who assist them. Those are the pertinent facts...
How did you mix up your assertion with facts?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with my post or the post I was responding to. Those were both specific to certain states. That means your drivel is not pertinent to my post. Maybe a little more bran in your diet would help clear your mind.
My guess would be mixing medications
It's odd that the politicians like Chucky only listen to the majority of Americans in certain situations.
I really enjoyed Chucks outrage for the camera when talking about the Supreme court leak but the head exploding award went to Warren for her sputtering rendition of over the top angst she gave for reporters. That may be a performance hard to beat before the November elections.
Just more leftist grandstanding and banal bullshit political theater.
What if Manchin or Senima refuse to go along?
Are they going to again vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act that the House passed and the Senate already rejected it on 2/27/2022 or is there a new Senate bill for this?
Either way, I think this is a good election year tactic for the Democrats to do. They will use the vote counts in their campaigning activities to gin up the base and try to get the women vote back. I don't know how much this will help them TBH as I still don't see abortions as the highest issues facing the country that will be on voters minds.
They may try to blame gas prices and inflation on those nasty pro lifers, he has been trying to place the blame on everyone else. Or maybe he will be proactive and blame the baby formula shortage on all the kids that could have been aborted that we will have to feed.
The baby formula shortage is a huge problem!! I went to 10 different places a few days ago before I could find one container of the formula my granddaughter uses. The shelves are empty!! Women are desperate to find what their babies need! I’m thankful that my granddaughter is almost done needing it but my heart hurts for the moms out there who have many months to go searching for food for their little ones.
I understand there was a recall and shutdown on one of the suppliers in feb. I wonder why it is taking so long to get them back up or for others to increase production.
I believe it was Abbott Nutrition in Michigan that was shut down. From what I have been reading the problem is expected to increase.
Same here, You would think this issue would be important enough to get some of these companies to step up production and get Abbott back in action but I guess it’s not as important as the great toilet paper shortage. SMH
Very stressful times for parents. This needs to be a priority.
Yes it does! I joined an online group in hopes of helping others out. They tell me what they’re looking for and if I see it I’ll grab it.
"Every American will see how every senator stands," Schumer said.
I think what Chuckie meant to say was every American will have the opportunity to see how every Senator stands if they wish. Of course that is true for every vote on every issue if one was inclined to look for it on line.. I think what Chuckie may be overstating how much the American public really considers this an important enough issue to care about much less get their panties in a twist over. I am not thinking this is going to lead to all the things democrats are trying to push will happen. Maybe they should rethink calling pretty much everything an attack on democracy or one group or another.
Should a Senator vote as per the preference of the majority of the people of their state?
Because if a Senator should vote the way the majority of the people in their state wants any bill to codify abortion should pass in the Senate.
I realize this is from 2014, but it shows only 21 states where the majority does not want to legalize abortion.
In theory I would think so. Since there is no way to actually do that voting in what he/she/it believes is in the best interest of his constituents(with their input as much as possible) will have to do. In reality they will probably vote on what they believe will get them elected but that may or may not be reflective of the majority of people, just the majority of voters.
The problem is that this, like everything they do in D.C., isn't put to the people to see what they want.
This is completely knee jerk reaction and grandstanding.
Abortion is going to hurt the Republician party, in my opinion
I think to an extent you are correct. The Democrats will use this to push their base for the election. And it may sway a few votes. But in the face of gerrymandering in addition to the majority issues of inflation and crime I don't think this will make that big of a difference overall in the upcoming election. Longer term than just the November elections I believe abortion is more of an issue that will hurt the Republican party, especially if they push later on to ban all abortions at the federal level. Many studies have been done that show the majority of the voting public does want abortion to be legal and safe, with some obvious restrictions around it.
It's possible, long term, that any state that bans abortion could see it's majority governing party change over time. Those changes at the state level could also coincide with census years which would allow the Democrat party to control the redistricting maps after a census which can allow for even more changes in gerrymandering.
I think part of it depends on if people buy the extreme narrative that the dems seem to be trying to portray this as. I have heard them talk about it banning abortion everywhere in the country to a future ban on everything from gay marriage to contraceptives.
Where is the disinformation board when you need them?
Ok, today the Senate will revote on the Women’s Health Protection Act that was previously rejected by the Senate on 2/27/2022.
That they will revote on the same measure that was drafted by Democrats and passed the House only by Democrats, the end result will be the same in the Senate where this will again fail. This is obviously a political play by Schumer for the November elections.
It also proves to me that the Democrats really have no desire to codify abortion at the federal level. Politics, as we have heard for years, is the art of compromise. A bill written by one party without input from the other party hardly speaks of any attempt at compromise. It shows that the Democrats would rather leave this as an unsettled issue so that they can use it as a club against the Republicans. Once again we have proof that the partisan nature of political parties has overtaken Washington and our elected politicians would rather bow to party leadership than actually work for the citizens of this country.
And as expected, the bill died again 51 - 49. A bipartisan rejection of the bill. As there were no changes made to the bill, this remained a 100% Democrat written bill that had all the makings of a poison pill for Republicans. Honestly, why can't some sort of compromise on this topic be made other than the simple reason that neither party wants to resolve the issue. So long as they can use this sort of issue to divide the people and keep the people fired up, why should they resolve it? Keeping the sheep fired up means more money and power in their pockets... oh well...