Hopefully the SC doesn't knock down Roe v. Wade, but...
If Supreme Court overturns Roe v.
The Reproductive Choice Act would codify Roe in federal law and prohibit “undue burdens” on people seeking abortions, but unlike the Women’s Health Protection Act undue burdens are undefined and the law specifically allows states to enact some kinds of restrictions, again undefined.
In other words, the Reproductive Choice Act would appear to maintain the status quo: preserve Roe like Democrats want, while permitting some state restrictions like Republicans want.
It was introduced in the Senate on February 28 as S. 3713, by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) alongside Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
Congressional Democrats tried with the Women’s Health Protection Act.
The legislation would have codified Roe into federal law, but also added additional measures beyond current Supreme Court precedents. Provisions included prohibitions on waiting periods, specific medical tests in advance, and limits on dispensing medication abortions in person or by telemedicine.
Last September it passed the House 218–211 on a party line vote, with Republicans unanimously opposing and Democrats almost completely supporting it 218–1. Among House Democrats, only Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX28) opposed, citing his Catholicism.
After passing the House, in February the bill failed cloture in the Senate by 46–48. Similar to the House vote, Republicans were unanimously opposed while all Democrats voted in favor except Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Two of the most centrist Senate Republicans, who both voted against it, have now introduced a compromise bill instead.
The Reproductive Choice Act would codify Roe in federal law and prohibit “undue burdens” on people seeking abortions, but unlike the Women’s Health Protection Act undue burdens are undefined and the law specifically allows states to enact some kinds of restrictions, again undefined.
In other words, the Reproductive Choice Act would appear to maintain the status quo: preserve Roe like Democrats want, while permitting some state restrictions like Republicans want.
It was introduced in the Senate on February 28 as S. 3713, by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) alongside Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
Congressional Democrats tried with the Women’s Health Protection Act.
The legislation would have codified Roe into federal law, but also added additional measures beyond current Supreme Court precedents. Provisions included prohibitions on waiting periods, specific medical tests in advance, and limits on dispensing medication abortions in person or by telemedicine.
Last September it passed the House 218–211 on a party line vote, with Republicans unanimously opposing and Democrats almost completely supporting it 218–1. Among House Democrats, only Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX28) opposed, citing his Catholicism.
After passing the House, in February the bill failed cloture in the Senate by 46–48. Similar to the House vote, Republicans were unanimously opposed while all Democrats voted in favor except Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Two of the most centrist Senate Republicans, who both voted against it, have now introduced a compromise bill instead.
That's a big difference in how the parties govern. Democrats let the perfect get in the way of the good. I could see them pushing through whatever they wanted if they had enough control of Congress. But you know you don't. Why even present shyt that's going to get 0 votes from the other side? I guess it's good to get them on record, but this is an issue where we already know where Republicans stand.
