Of Course Susan Collins Won't Vote to Protect Abortion Rights
If I were to tell you that, tomorrow, the House plans to vote on a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade, and that said bill might stand a chance in the Senate if some Republicans would give it their approval, do you think self-proclaimed abortion-rights advocate Susan Collins would get onboard? Given her outward statements that she support[s] codifying Roe, and all that? No, of course she wouldnt. I regret to report that the Maine senator is back on her bullshit. This time, she says she will oppose the Womens Health Protection Act, which would cement the landmark Supreme Court decision as federal law so that states like Texas could not engineer endless new ways to restrict abortion access.
Collins told reporters that the legislation on the table goes way beyond the codification goal by severely weakening protections for providers who do not offer abortion services for religious reasons. But the Womens Health Protection Act does not mandate that every doctor must provide abortion services on demand; rather, it states that a health-care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services up until fetal viability, around 23 weeks into a pregnancy (and after, though only when continuing the pregnancy threatens the patients health or life).
The bulk of the bills text rebukes the myriad restrictions the religious right has devised over the years to winnow access: Under the WHPA, states could not make termination contingent upon the patients receipt of medically inaccurate information designed to dissuade them from going through with the procedure, for example, nor could states take clinics out of operation over the width of their hallways. When you have conservative lawmakers looking to torpedo Roe from any possible angle see, again, Texas, which recently incentivized the public to pursue a cash bounty on anyone suspected of aiding or abetting abortion it is important to be specific. Also, it bears noting that the Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging Roes terms on December 1, and without federal protections, the decision could be devastating.
To Collins, however, the bills language occasionally borders on extreme, and she claims to be in talks with some of her colleagues to present a hypothetical alternative that truly would codify Roe. Unfortunately, the Womens Health Protection Act will likely fail in the Senate without some Republican support, offering Collins the opportunity to do what she does best. Though she likes to tout herself as a moderate Republican as well as the rare Republican who openly supports reproductive rights she reliably falls in line when the time comes for action.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/of-course-susan-collins-wont-vote-to-protect-abortion-rights/ar-AAOKEBf
JohnSJ
(92,190 posts)A moderate anymore
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)unless Democrats are willing to bypass the filibuster for that bill (and I doubt they will) it's going to need at least 10 Republican votes (more than 10 if some Democrats defect, which seems likely). This is probably just going to be a bill to beat Republican up with on the 2022 campaign trail.