Democrats lose attempt to pass a Abortion Rights bill

[Ray Glenn]

At 4:01 Washington time. The Democrats had already lost 41-38. They needed 60 votes to get the law passed.

At 4:19 Washington time the finale vote count ended at 51-49. Schumer failed and Harris had to make the announcement.

She left immediately.

The Senate accomplished some good today. They passed a law to protect Supreme Court Justices. That vote now goes to the House.

A useless law because there is already a law on the books where a protestor that protests at a Justices house is to be arrested with a year possible jail time and cash penalties.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I wonder if this is why pro abortion rights protestors showed up outside Nancey Pelosi house either early today or yesterday....

 

[BobRyan]

At 4:01 Washington time. The Democrats had already lost 41-38. They needed 60 votes to get the law passed.

At 4:19 Washington time the finale vote count ended at 51-49. Schumer failed and Harris had to make the announcement.

She left immediately.

The Senate accomplished some good today. They passed a law to protect Supreme Court Justices. That vote now goes to the House.

A useless law because there is already a law on the books where a protestor that protests at a Justices house is to be arrested with a year possible jail time and cash penalties.

They knew they would lose to start with. This was not about winning that vote - it was about getting republicans on record as having a high regard for the value of human life. The Democrats assumed this would outrage most Americans.

They cemented their intended result by the vast over-reach in their bill - one that removes some of the existing protections in the abortion process. It removes safe guards and safety standards already in place and forbids informing the woman of just exactly what she is doing to the baby and what the alternatives are. The bill apparently demands that abortions be allowed right up to the birth date.

They shot themselves in the foot because many of their own pro-abortion constituents don't support such extremes.

It was unwittingly to show that the low regard for human life that America witnessed during the years of slavery in 1850's and 60's (for example) is not entirely a "thing of the past", so now they have an official recorded vote to that effect.

And what political party in the 1850's and 1860's was having such a difficult time struggling with getting to the right side of the issue regarding the value of human life???

We should not fail to learn the lessons taught in history.

 

[Fantine]

I think the bill providing protection for Supreme Court justices is a good thing. Over the years there have been many more anti-abortion marchers than pro-choice marchers, and this will protect the judges on all sides of the political spectrum.

As for the vote, it forced people of both parties to take a stand. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have said they were pro-choice for years--even when Collins voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Legislators who claim to support one position--on any issue--while continually voting in the opposite direction should be recognized as the hypocrites they are.

And you are right, Bob Ryan, in that most Americans' beliefs on abortion fall somewhere in the middle, with most Americans supporting abortions with earlier time limits and/or in limited circumstances.

Neither the Republican position or the Democratic position addresses the majority of Americans' concerns, so then the question is which of the two extremes are they more comfortable with?

 

[seeking.IAM]

When they stop protests on public property, you no longer live in a free country.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When they stop protests on public property, you no longer live in a free country.

Jan 6th?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Jan 6th?

Oh, you mean the insurrection? Yes, I agree there was a right to peaceful protest, but it was quickly abandoned. Had they stayed outside, shouted slogans, and waved placards they had their right to protest. When you breach a secure building and try to interrupt or overthrow legitimate government process you are well beyond protest. I would suggest that kicking in the door of a Justice's house or tramping on his grass is also a far different thing that a chalk drawing on his/her public sidewalk.

I have no tolerance for traitorous insurrectionists.

 

[Fantine]

I looked at a video outside Alito's house. The people had placards and later held lighted candles.
One woman made a speech. I was surprised that Alito's earliest reference was a man who condemned women to death as witches and who said men could forcibly rape their wives.
How much of a firm legal foundation is it when Alito bases his first historical reference on a murderous defender of rape? Under today's laws, such a person would be in prison for life without parole or possibly on death row.

 

[Ray Glenn]

I think the bill providing protection for Supreme Court justices is a good thing. Over the years there have been many more anti-abortion marchers than pro-choice marchers, and this will protect the judges on all sides of the political spectrum.

As for the vote, it forced people of both parties to take a stand. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have said they were pro-choice for years--even when Collins voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Legislators who claim to support one position--on any issue--while continually voting in the opposite direction should be recognized as the hypocrites they are.

And you are right, Bob Ryan, in that most Americans' beliefs on abortion fall somewhere in the middle, with most Americans supporting abortions with earlier time limits and/or in limited circumstances.

Neither the Republican position or the Democratic position addresses the majority of Americans' concerns, so then the question is which of the two extremes are they more comfortable with?

That is not what Kavanaugh said. Collins misrepresented what occurred during that meeting. Barr was very specific in what was phrased and what was said because Collins was attempting to make a SCOTUS Justice explain how he would rule under a theoretical situation. Collis knows better than this. As a politician with voters on each side of the issue, she's trying to showboat to cover herself when she casts a vote to end the Senate attempt to force a law by the Federal Government which would be unconstitutional immediately. Want an iron clad law? Pass an amendment.