WaPo Opinion: Busting the filibuster for abortion now is madness

[question everything]

I don't know who the WaPo James Hohmann is, but I think he is raising important points:

Democrats hoping to change the rules of the Senate in a futile bid to pass a federal law protecting abortion rights are displaying the most myopic political thinking since liberals called for defunding the police. Then, as now, their anger was righteous and raw. Millions of Americans took to the streets in the spring of 2020 to protest systemic racism after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. But the shortsighted demands to divert resources from law enforcement continue to hobble Democrats who never even embraced the idea. Revising the filibuster will hurt even more in the long term.

The left’s thirst for Senate Democrats to do something about Dobbs is understandable, but the reality is that weakening the filibuster would simply open the door for Republicans to pass their own, far-more-punitive federal restrictions once they inevitably return to power. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) points to seven bills restricting abortion rights that would have passed the Senate in recent years had it not been for the 60-vote threshold necessary to overcome a filibuster. With Roe gone, Sinema says the filibuster is “more important now than ever.”

Republican visions of an abortion-free America will turn very real if the Democrats pursue this goal. Just two years ago, when Donald Trump was president, 53 senators voted to advance a 20-week abortion ban and 56 senators backed a Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have created criminal penalties for doctors who failed to follow new federal standards after procedures went awry. In 2015, 53 senators voted to ban federal funding for Planned Parenthood. In 2006, 57 senators voted to make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents in advance.

Democrats should have learned this lesson by now. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wrangled the votes to get rid of the filibuster for most presidential nominations, but he insisted it would not apply to the Supreme Court. That opened the door in 2017 for his successor as majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), to remove the high court exemption so he could confirm Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. If Reid had left the original 60-vote threshold in place for all nominations, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe — might not have been confirmed on the eve of the 2020 election.


More..

https://wapo.st/3yLnpwP

[jimfields33]

1. Very good points

I think a lot of issues would have a “ping pong” affect. Approximately every four years rules would change (the senate seems to change about that amount).

[onecaliberal]

2. Reasons why women must be controlled. Shithole country.

[PoliticAverse]

3. The person believes McConnell wouldn't have made a filibuster carve out to get his Supreme dream

court?

And you can do filibuster carve outs for individual bills and there was one recently done by Democrats for the debt limit.

[onecaliberal]

5. Republicans will 💯 do this the nano second they get back into power NO MATTER WHAT.

WHY doesn’t anyone understand? These arguments are once again facts NOT in evidence. They do not ever play by the rules. They take power and do what they want and they don’t give one fuck about the law or rules. Can we STOP acting like they do

[question everything]

9. Do you disagree with the examples given above that were it not for the filibuster anti abortion laws

would have passed?

[onecaliberal]

12. It's ALL a deflection to give themselves cover for what they're are absolutely going to if they

Get power. What the Dems do or don’t do doesn’t matter to them.

[question everything]

10. Can he do this on his own? Didn't Reid need to get some agreement?

And if he can carve out a filibuster, why didn't he do this with the anti abortion laws mentioned in the story?

[PoliticAverse]

24. You can do a carve out in the Senate on any piece of legislation with 50+1 votes.

Reid did it with a vote of 52-48 (See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations ).

The votes mentioned in the story occurred before Republicans had the votes on the Supreme Court to make any of them stick. Additionally the Republicans are the "party of no" and want to preserve the filibuster for legislation because they benefit more by stopping legislation than they would by passing legislation.

[unblock]

4. How the f*ck do they figure mcturtle wouldn't have railroaded Amy conehead in?

Mcturtle in particular and republicans in general have proven that they will bend or break or invent any rule to get their way.

Are we seriously supposed to think that the *sshole who wouldn't even consider garland would then say gosh, I can't go nuclear myself because my best pal Reid didn't?

Please.

Especially because, iirc, Reid went nuclear for non-supreme court judicial nominations. Mcturtle went nuclear for the Supreme Court itself.

Wtf. Trying to pin all this Republican crap on Reid.

[question everything]

11. As soon as Trump took control, McConnell approved 200 judges to offices that he left open

when Obama was the president.

I am not a parliamentarian but I think that all the changes that we want, like increasing the number of supreme court justices can and will be reversed once they come to power.

[unblock]

19. Some things would take the trifecta to reverse

And if republicans win the trifecta, they will fix it so we're permanently screwed.

[Cheezoholic]

6. Hohman is full of it

Implying the current fascist rendition of the repuke party has any integrity or ethical fortitude is a perfect example of Democrats naivete and pussyfooting that got us here in the first place. Saying Coney Dog is Reid's fault is pure naive BS. There is no longer any chance whatsoever of working with these pigs. The filibuster should be used to codify ROE if for nothing else to put any Senators on notice they are against the right to privacy via their vote. Its time to put down the wiffle ball and play hardball. We have everything to gain and will lose everything if we don't.

[onecaliberal]

13. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

So much this!

[emulatorloo]

7. Bullshit premise: " since liberals called for defunding the police." That never happened.

If you start your op-ed w a lie, you have zero credibility.

[question everything]

14. We lost seats based on this slogan. And members of Minneapolis city council did call for that

Democratic Whip James Clyburn: 'Defund the police' cost Democrats seats, hurt Black Lives Matter movement

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/08/james-clyburn-defund-police-cost-democrats-seats-hurt-black-lives-matter/6216371002/

[emulatorloo]

16. Was it an official position of the Democrats as author says? No it NEVER was

But Republicans LIED and said it was, this author is lying too. I agree w Clyburn that it did cost votes. But it was fringe twitter who pushed that slogan, not liberal Democrats.

[AllTooEasy]

18. Doesn't need to be an official position to have the undesired affect

The problem is that you overrate the intelligence of a vast numbers of Americans. The slogan only had to be attached to the Democratic party in people's minds via repetitive statements (i.e. brainwashing). You and I didn't fall for it because we aren't idiots.

[MN2theMax]

8. To quote Sinema in his article

let me know that this guy is not on the democrat's side. To think that any restraint the democrats demonstrate will somehow be matched by Moscow Mitch if he were to return to power. That is some kind of wishful thinking. Maybe 30 years ago, but we are up against the out-in-the-open Christo-fascists now.

This attempt to get the democrats to go along with the fascist power grab is obvious.

[duckworth969]

15. Hohmann is wrong

Filibuster carve out will be just fine.

Sinema has got to go, no two ways about it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. I don't care- killing the filibuster provides transparent accountability for both parties

I am willing to risk future extreme votes by Republican majorities in exchange for Dems having the ability to pass their agenda when in the majority.

If Republicans overreach in the laws they pass, and they likely will, voters can hold them accountable.

The filibuster has been used as a shield for unaccountability and an excuse for inaction by both parties, and it must stop if democracy is to survive.

[Demsrule86]

23. I agree completely...it is why we have gridlock and half the country doesn't vote...why bother

when nothing ever gets done...codify Roe and dare the GOP to do shit.

[slightlv]

20. I'm just sick and tired of women's rights and liberties always being

the fallback to backburner status. The ping pong (as someone above put it). R's will do what R's will do... when they want to do it. Period. Who knows they're timing? They've played a 50 year long game. We haven't. We don't know they're game plan. We know basically what they want as an end state. What each step to getting there is? We don't know. We just know they will accomplish it in their own time frame. McConnell has played a masterful game up to now. And this is why I HATE politics. They DO treat it like it is a game; and it's not. It's playing with people's lives. One thing this article blithely seems to forget is that women are going to die. This is a given. Women are going to be put into prison. Women who are going to try to self abort. Women who miscarry; women who are put in totally medically dire circumstances. And men are going to go on with their lives like they had no part in any of this. Which is why this article can be written like this.

[Timeflyer]

21. Feeling the same

Women's bodies, women's lives, women's civil rights seem to always be judged worth less then those of men. Women know in their bones that it's always open season on us, but we won't go back, and we won't be quiet and we will fight because our lives are literally at stake.

[slightlv]

25. For weeks now, I've had Tom Petty's song running through my head:

"And we won't back down"... I think we need to adopt this song as our anthem this time, every bit as much as we adopted "I Am Woman" back in the 70's. I guess by now it's become an earwig to me. Every time I see another one of these "women to the back of the line" posts (as I read them) I hear Tom Petty's voice sing, "No, I won't back down"...

[Demsrule86]

22. Nonsense...the GOP will end the filibuster in order to stop fair elections,to end Medicare and

anything of value.

[lees1975]

26. Don't you think that the GOP will break the filibuster to do this

the next time they get 51 votes in the Senate?

Come on, we need to start thinking in terms of how to get things done on behalf of the people so that Republicans don't ever have enough votes in the senate to do anything. Is that possible? I think it is. Some changes in the party structure and leadership will be necessary but I believe we can make it happen.