Senate Nears Vote On Women's Health Protection Act, Some Reps Are Not Sure Where They Stand

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Ever since it was known that the Supreme Court intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made his intentions known to bring the Women’s Health Protection Act up for a procedural vote in the Senate.

The WHPA would codify the right for women to have an abortion into law and stops governmental restrictions on access to abortion services. It would also prevent states from requiring patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or forcing women to disclose their reasons for obtaining abortions and related services.

Last September, the legislation passed the House by a narrow margin and has stalled in the Senate since February. Democrats will first need 60 Senators to move the bill for a debate. Then, they need 50 senators to agree to change the Senate’s filibuster rule for the WHPA to have a chance to become law–a measure that is expected to fail. We know how this story goes.

As Newsweek reports, two potential senators have hinted at how they will go. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has said she would be a “no.” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is reportedly undecided and will “wait and see” after the Democrats’ lunch today. Manchin did slide with Republicans to block the procedural vote back in February.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/senate-nears-vote-womens-health-212500066.html

[Hekate]

2. Stand up and be counted, Senators

We’ll remember

[Just_Vote_Dem]

3. This should be 100 yes votes

If we had a sane country...

[iemanja]

4. Why is Murkowski a no?

Besides the fact that she's a Republican?

[Demsrule86]

5. Because they are Republicans and she is running for office...Collins is a no too...

Does anyone here think we get 60 votes?

[Wednesdays]

7. We'll be hard pressed to get 50.

[DemocraticPatriot]

12. Murkowski and Collins favor an alternate version

which includes wording which would 'protect the right' of doctors to refuse to perform abortions based upon their religious objections...
or something to that effect.

[Demsrule86]

6. The media will announce breathlessly that we failed...of course there was never a chance

anyway. We needed to wait until after the midterm.

[in2herbs]

8. Disagree. This vote needs to be repeated once every week until and after midterms. It's

purpose is to put Senators on records who are pro and who are anti.

[Phoenix61]

10. Not sure about every week but would defiantly think once a month. nt

[dixiechiken1]

11. Exactly right.

Democrats are doing the right thing by bringing this to the floor. We all know it won't pass. But it needs to be made very, very clear exactly who is keeping it from passing. And there needs to be no wiggle room for anyone on where they stand. Make them own it. And I agree, make them own it OFTEN, all the way up to the midterms (and beyond).

May every one of those shitstains taking away our rights never know a moment's peace.

[BlueIdaho]

9. Win or Lose

We’ll know who the woman haters are - on both sides.