'Congress Must Act': Bernie Sanders Demands End of Filibuster to Codify Abortion Rights

[AZProgressive]

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday called it unacceptable to sit back and watch the U.S. Supreme Court possibly end the right of women to access abortion care and said his colleagues in the Senate should act urgently to end the filibuster and codify into federal law the protections afforded by Roe v. Wade—the historic ruling now under the most severe threat since it was first decided in 1973.

"When it comes to telling every woman in America what she can or cannot do with her own body, about whether or not she can access reproductive health care, now all of a sudden my Republican colleagues are exponents of very big and oppressive government... What hypocrisy!"

In an email to supporters, the Independent from Vermont and former presidential candidate, said a final decision by the court to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban nearly all abortions at just 15 weeks of pregnancy would "mean governments in many states would have the ability to make it virtually impossible for women to access an abortion."

"The truth is, despite overwhelming opposition from the American people," Sanders continued, "there is a very strong chance that this conservative Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/12/04/congress-must-act-bernie-sanders-demands-end-filibuster-codify-abortion-rights

[PortTack]

1. Bernie is absolutely right!!

[Busterscruggs]

2. He would have

Crushed Trump in 2016. The American people are more than ready for democratic socialism and he has been the best advocate for it.

[TexasTowelie]

4. What evidence do you have that Americans are more than ready for democratic socialism?

The half of this country that votes Republican don't want it. There are also plenty of Democrats that don't want it either. Perhaps you meant the Democratic Socialists of America are ready for democratic socialism?

The polls that were taken showing Bernie would have beat Trump also occurred months before the election. Can you produce a poll that was within a month of the 2016 general election; otherwise, all you have is conjecture.

[Cha]

22. No "evidence" .. just pure Speculation.

[leftstreet]

33. Half the country doesn't vote

About half the eligible voters that is

You're right that half the voters who do vote have shown specific preferences, but it's troubling when people begin to believe media hype that "half the country" thinks something

[iemanja]

6. Bullshit

[dem4decades]

7. Please, Putin and Trump were ready for Bernie too.

[George II]

9. "The American people are more than ready for democratic socialism" - on what do you base that?

Have you seen the recent elections around the country, particularly the election in the second largest city in his native state?

I can't believe someone is still bringing up the 2016 primary less than a month from 2022.

[iemanja]

10. Yeah, they only vote Republican

because the Dems won't give them democratic socialism. It makes zero sense. That entire argument is based on the assumption that what the poster wants is universal. Of course evidence doesn't matter because the self is what counts.

[Busterscruggs]

15. I am interested

In that last part about the self, could you expound on that please?

[iemanja]

18. You think the country wants democratic socialism

because you do. You assume your own views are universal.

[Busterscruggs]

21. Oh no

I would love to see a strong democratic socialist debate a repug but I understand opinions as well. My outlook is based on observations of what I've seen in my personal life and what I've seen on the national news

[iemanja]

25. You're looking at the world

through rose colored glasses. Your assumption is not based on evidence.

[Busterscruggs]

26. How so?

Besides, dreamers are necessary to make big ideas happen

[iemanja]

32. I've been around a lot longer than you

and I've seen the country (not the Dem Party) move increasingly to the right where the GOP is now full-blown fascist. Just think, in the last election, people were willing to vote for a party that participated in and covered up a failed coup.

At no point has there been any indication that the country wants candidates further to the left. The left-leaning progressive candidates and democratic socialists only win in deep blue districts, like mine. The country, however, is not made up of entirely deep blue districts. For most of the country, socialism is a dirty word. Even liberal is a dirty word, which is how the term progressive came into use.

Have you ever seen a democratic socialist or even a squad-type progressive win in a swing district? It doesn't happen. Not once. Do you have polling data to suggest that a majority of Americans favor democratic socialism? No, because they don't. They might support certain progressive policies as long as they aren't attributed to Democrats, let alone democratic socialists, but there is no affiliation toward the label of democratic socialist. If you have any data to show otherwise, please do.

In the 50s, being a socialist got you locked up in prison or blacklisted. No Democrat would have dared to use the label. America, rather blue America, is more tolerant today, but that doesn't mean they want a democratic socialist. Dem socialists don't win at the national level (a primaries) or in swing districts, which means they can't win in a GE. Because you like them is irrelevant. We can all wish upon a star for a government we might like to have, but what we can get is very, very different.

I've love to see the filibuster abolished, but as long as we have senate hold-outs like Sinema and Manchin, it's not happening. And Bernie knows that.

[Busterscruggs]

11. Maybe those recent elections

Needed more real democratic socialists in them? I'm just putting this out there because of our shared concerns over the last election. The platform offers alot for the common man, I think we can agree on that as well?

[iemanja]

12. So does the Democratic platform

but voters care more about their racism and critical race theory. Your imaginary America doesn't exist.

[George II]

13. There was a Democratic Socialist on the ballot in Buffalo. Democratic Socialism was so.....

....distasteful that the people of Buffalo elected someone (a Democrat) who wasn't even on the ballot.

[Busterscruggs]

16. What would you

Suggest to make our chances of keeping the country blue? I don't want those repukes doing more damage like they are planning to do to reproductive rights

[George II]

20. My first suggestion would be to stop bashing Democrats who have already shown they can win.

[Busterscruggs]

23. I wouldn't dream

Of bashing our own. I always look for the blue label when voting. Who is doing the bashing?

[TexasTowelie]

28. You haven't been here long enough to know and you didn't say it directly.

but what you posted is passive-aggressive bashing (almost identical wording) and we have dealt with that on DU for the past five years.

[Nixie]

39. +1000

We already know what lost so why keep promoting it. It does sound so familiar.

[iemanja]

50. and the reason people haven't argued with that part of your post

Is because it violates the rule of refighting an old primary.

[brooklynite]

75. In fairness, the rule bans "refighting the LAST Primary"

This subthread started out with an assumption that Sanders would have won in 2016...

[Nixie]

38. Didn't Biden just show a year ago what it took?

Doing more of that seems to be the winner. Right? How could losing keep the country blue.

[Demsrule86]

54. Stop the fucking message voting and vote blue always- in all circumstances ...don't demand

a candidate you can 'fall in love with'...and vote in every f'ing election ...from dog catcher to President...and for the love of God support a Democratic President during the midterms. This would help a great deal.

[Demsrule86]

59. God no...Democratic Socialists can win in only the bluest of states and districts...in fact I think

Bernie is their only Senate win...correct me if I am wrong.

[Cha]

17. Just NO.

[Skittles]

27. dream on

there's a reason why he didn't win - lots of Dems cannot stand him

[Tribetime]

49. You've been here for 30 days are you here just to cause trouble

[Demsrule86]

55. He would have lost the rust belt IMHO...only Biden and maybe Tim Ryan could have carried the

rust belt.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

66. Do you have any facts to back up this claim?

I believe that TFG would easily beat Sanders in both popular vote and the electoral college

[betsuni]

73. Stop trying to make the revolution happen. It's not going to happen.

Last edited Sun Dec 5, 2021, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

From Steven Stoft's "Ripped Apart, How Democrats Can Fight Polarization to Win":

"'Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called themselves liberals and progressives.' Yes, in a fantastical March 2016 op-ed, Professor Robert Reich predicted that he would someday look back on Bernie Sanders' Revolution which happened when the Tea Party went socialist. He continued, 'The People's Party won the U.S. presidency and a majority of both houses of Congress in 2020.' Bernie would be president. There would be peace and prosperity in the Promised Land. Reich was contending that there was still time to rip out the base of both major parties and join them at the hip to form the 'People's Party' for a populist/socialist takeover in 2020."

Why this didn't and won't happen, the difference between left and right populism:

"Left populism focuses on economic issues .... But the populism of Trump's base is Jacksonian, and it focuses on ... mainly cultural issues -- race, immigration, guns, sexual minorities, religion, abortion, climate change, and political incorrectness. Left populism presents a simple populist dichotomy. The elite consists of the of the richest 1% and their political enablers, and the rest are 'the people.' According to the left-populist view, pretty much everyone is part of Us, so Trump's base is naturally in there with us. ... But the Jacksonians, like most right-wing populists, split Them into the Elite and Outsiders. These are the minorities, Blacks, immigrants, and sexual minorities. ... In this way, Jacksonians exclude about half the Democratic Party from 'the real people.'

"A second surprise is the most shocking. Jacksonians see White liberals and progressives as part of the elite! In right-wing populism, the elite are usually seen as being in cahoots with the excluded group. Democrats are obvious champions of the poor and and minorities -- that's what Democratic identity politics is about. ... The third surprise is their sympathy for the 'hard-working' rich. ... The result is that Trump's base classifies most billionaires as part of 'the real people.' ... Socialism tries to overcome the divide between progressives and Trump's base by focusing on economic disadvantage. But that's not what the Jacksonians focus on. ... It makes no sense to trash our own party for the sake of an imaginary revolution based on a total misunderstanding of Trump and his base."

No, Americans are not democratic socialists but just don't know it yet.

[TexasTowelie]

3. Bernie can make demands until he turns blue.

There is zero percent chance that he will get what he desires.

[questionseverything]

29. So because it's Bernie advocating for a woman's right to chose, you are against it?

For Pete’s sake

Even manchin and sinima claim to be pro choice, why shouldn’t we ditch the filibuster at least for women’s rights and voting rights?

[TexasTowelie]

30. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

Where in my reply did I say that I am opposed to a woman's right to choose, for Pete's sake? Please don't make shit up about me. I would not do that to you so I expect the same respect to be shown to me.

You might want to check the Women's Issues Groups to see the OPs that I've posted.

BTW, you don't get to ditch the filibuster to vote on a specific bill. If that were the case the filibuster would have been ditched dozens if not hundreds of times by both parties.

[questionseverything]

31. Since the filibuster isn't in the constitution the party controlling the senate can do whatever they

Want with it

Ditching the filibuster to make the protections in roe into law is the only way a woman’s right to chose will be protected since the supremes are all about the fetus, screw the person carrying it

[iemanja]

35. Manchin and Sinema have to agree

and they don't. That's the problem. It's not just a question of making a public proclamation and something happening as a result.

[TexasTowelie]

36. Apparently Manchin and Sinema are not willing to eliminate the filibuster for this issue.

As I stated earlier, Bernie can make demands until he turns blue but he won't get what he wants. Having a temper tantrum against those who don't want to follow his suggested pathway is Bernie's problem to deal with. Perhaps Bernie needs to turn on "the charm" instead of issuing demands?

Bernie's concern about the Senate rules has a shelf life since he isn't a member of the Democratic Party. Manchin and Sinema (even though conservative) are members of the Democratic Party so they don't want to eliminate a tool that the party can use should the Democrats lose the majority. I consider their views as playing the "long game" rather than going for immediate gratification. Furthermore, if the SCOTUS takes the harshest positions on the Mississippi and Texas abortion cases, there isn't anything that stops Congress from codifying abortion rights into federal law. Since I do play the "long game" I have the patience to see what the Supreme Court decides and the impact of those decisions rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to something that has not occurred yet.

[questionseverything]

37. Being insulting isn't the long game

We (democrats) are only in the majority because Bernie caucuses with us

Tantrums and turning blue?

This is why we can’t have nice things

[TexasTowelie]

41. Have you ever heard of hyperbole?

This is a political discussion board. As long as my opinions stay within the TOS I'll post as I see fit.

Turn blue -- how is that an insult?

Tantrums -- well Bernie is making demands that can't come to fruition. If this was the first time that Bernie made demands then the word might be harsh. However, this isn't the first time I've seen this type of behavior from Bernie so I'll stick with my word choice.

As far as why we can't have nice things, people have different priorities in life. I'm more oriented to what happens to Social Security and Medicare than I am towards other programs, particularly if I perceive or receive any benefit from them. What you may call a "nice thing" might be an "unnecessary extravagance" to me.

[Demsrule86]

58. We are only the majority because Sinema and Manchin caucus with us too...the ACA would be gone

if not for Manchin's vote...we need everyone...But I wish Bernie would consider something that had a chance of working. And future Senate majorities will be won in purple and red states if you look at the map so we might as well figure out how to get some things done.

[questionseverything]

40. As for "something that has not occurred yet"

You realize women are already having to leave texas to get abortions in Kansas City or st louis right?

Since not every woman can afford the travel I guarantee you, some women have already died from botched abortions in texas

That “ long game” stuff is only for the well off and privileged

[TexasTowelie]

42. First thing, I reside in Texas and lived here all 56 years of my life

so don't be condescending as though I don't know what is going on within my own state and the impact of the new law. I review and post articles from 80 different media sites in Texas each week, so I definitely know what is going on.

As for your comment about the "long game" I am far from being well off and privileged (as I said earlier, stop making shit up about me). I am living off of Social Security Supplemental Income so your assumption is absurd. I'm actually living in poverty instead, so you are WRONG and you should apologize.

As far as the issue of botched abortions are concerned, I suspect that some may have occurred but I also haven't seen any stories or statistics confirming that has occurred. I also know that some women are going over the border into Mexico and New Mexico to receive abortions. If financial resources are a real issue for the women involved, then which is the less expensive option--traveling out of Texas for an abortion or carrying the child to term and having to provide for that child for the next 18 years? As the old saying goes, "when there is a will there is a way."

Finally, as an aside, unless you can produce some evidence, I would refrain from using "I guarantee" in a less friendly environment than a discussion board because you will be immediately challenged and portrayed as foolish without that proof.

[Polybius]

56. Sinema yes, but Manchin is complicated on the issue:

Abortion

Manchin identifies as "pro-life."[68] He has mixed ratings from both abortion-rights and anti-abortion movements political action groups. In 2018, Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization that provides reproductive health services, including abortions, gave Manchin a lifetime grade of 57%. National Right to Life (NRLC), which opposes abortion, gave Manchin a 100% score in 2019 and NARAL Pro-Choice America gave him a 72% in 2017.[69] On August 3, 2015, he broke with Democratic leadership by voting in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill to terminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood both in the United States and globally.[70] He has the endorsement of Democrats for Life of America, a Democratic PAC that opposes abortion.[71]

On March 30, 2017, Manchin voted against H.J.Res. 43, which allowed states to refuse to give Title X grant money to organizations for reasons unrelated to their ability to provide the services needed.[72] Trump signed the bill.[73] In April 2017, Manchin endorsed the continued funding of Planned Parenthood.[74][75] Also in 2017, Planned Parenthood gave him a rating of 44%.[76] In January 2018, Manchin joined two other Democrats and most Republicans by voting for a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks.[77] In June 2018, upon Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, Manchin urged Trump not to appoint a judge who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade but to instead choose a "centrist".[78]

In 2019, Manchin was one of three Democrats to join all Republicans in voting for a bill to require that doctors care for infants born alive after a failed abortion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin#:~:text=and%2046%25%20liberal.-,Abortion,abortion%20movements%20political%20action%20groups.

[questionseverything]

61. Time to see "which side he is on"

Susan collins and a couple other republican women senators say they are pro choice…. Time to show cards I think

Anyway it seems like the only choice right now, unless a couple of those republicans die in their sleep…..which wouldn’t bother me

[Polybius]

64. I just created a thread on this topic

I think Collins has already said that she would support it, and Murkowski is pro-choice too. I'm just wondering how we can word it to not lose any more votes. Should it be absolute or up until the third trimester? Anyway, feel free to check it out:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216114831

[Demsrule86]

86. It is kind of like Sen. Sanders says a woman has the right to choose and? Most Democrats agree.

Even those Democrats who are anti-choice haven't voted against legal abortion. What does he plan to do about it? That is what we would like to hear.

[iemanja]

5. Bernie needs to be having this conversation with Manchin

and Sinema.

[Demsrule86]

87. No, first Benie needs to have a conversation with Manchin and the house Dems over BBB...lets

accomplish something. Next deal with defense. It will matter in the midterms and then let's have an all-out push for codifying abortion...make GOP types vote against it...but this will take time and we need to get BBB and defense done first.

[George II]

8. Isn't Sanders in Congress? Has he acted?

[Voltaire2]

14. I'm pretty sure Chuck Schumer is in charge

of the agenda in the Senate, but I could be wrong.

Anyhow, do you disagree that the senate should abolish the filibuster to extent required to advance legislation making abortion rights federal law?

[iemanja]

19. It's not a question of should

It's can they, and they can't as long as Manchin and Simena refuse to vote for it.

[Voltaire2]

43. So they shouldn't even try?

[iemanja]

45. They have tried

repeatedly.

[George II]

24. If that's the case then why isn't he talking to Chuck Schumer instead of sending out emails?

Your last sentence/question is based upon an incorrect premise.

[Voltaire2]

46. To generate publicity and support.

Keep it in the news. Don’t allow the media to move on.

Do you support ending the filibuster and bringing a federal abortion rights bill to the senate?

[George II]

57. It's an email to his supporters and those on his email list, from wherever he got them....

To me it would make more sense to "generate support" from his own colleagues in the Senate, not an email list of campaign contributors. Agree?

Now, let me rephrase your question:

Should not a sitting Senator advocating for this, work within the Senate to "end the filibuster and bring a federal abortion rights bill to the senate"? I'm not in a position myself to end the filibuster or bring a federal abortion rights bill to the Senate, he and his colleagues are.

So, I reviewed the web page below, didn't find such a bill. Did I miss it?

https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Sanders%22%2C%22Sanders%22%5D%7D&s=2&r=1

[sheshe2]

62. I just went to the link and I never read Common Dreams.

The video clip at the link, it has to be at least 40 years old. So for 40 plus years he hasn't acted on it? I am confused here.

Remember this?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/13/16469216/bernie-sanders-womens-conference-speech

[Budi]

67. Yes. He was clearly rejected as a speaker for women

I remember that.
Of all the true warriors for women down thru the years, those who made it their life's calling, he is who they chose?

Half those signed on to attend, paid their fees, rented hotel rooms flat out refused to attend & demanded their fees be returned.
There was only one reason for that disaster to occur at an event that thousands signed onto.

Thanks for the reminder.

[In It to Win It]

34. Don't hold your breath

[brooklynite]

44. "in an email to supporters"

…who already agree with him.

If he’s a presumed leader, he should be focusing his attention on people (and elected officials) who don’t agree with him.

[George II]

51. Yes, it's an email with the link to a "petition", and a request for contributions. Normally....

....one would think if it's "unacceptable to sit back and watch the U.S. Supreme Court possibly end the right of women to access abortion care and said his colleagues in the Senate should act urgently to end the filibuster and codify into federal law the protections afforded by Roe v. Wade", one would introduce such a bill "codifying the protections afforded by Roe v. Wade".

Plus, if "Congress must act", as a member of Congress I would think it behooves him to so act.

[Budi]

60. Now he makes 'demands'?

In 2016 he called Planned Parenthood "Establishment".

Where was he then, when all was on the line for the autonomy of women & girls.
What was he demanding for them when the warnings of the SC & Roe were being told?

Now it's merely a fundraiser, huh.

[Demsrule86]

52. Wow, why didn't I think of that...I sincerely hope he sends them a sternly worded lettter.

[sheshe2]

69. ;)

[betsuni]

76. Heh.

[Demsrule86]

83. A little humor...I actually think Sen. Sanders has done a good job working with the Biden

administration. Now if they would only stop squabbling and pass BBB in some form. Take what you can get! Let's show we can govern.

[Polybius]

53. Another problem is that Manchin is anti-abortion

So we need Republican votes.

[Nanjeanne]

65. You mean he is anti-choice. No one is forcing him to have one. It is a choice women

make with great seriousness.

[Demsrule86]

84. We might get Collins and maybe Murkowski...I don't know. It is a long shot. We need to pass

BBB and defense first sd this will take much time.

[Tribetime]

63. I don't understand the Bernie hate on this site

If any other Democrat would have said this people would agree but since it's Bernie he gets attacked

[Budi]

68. It's his history not meeting up to the moment.

Well that & his demands have now become a political fundraiser for himself.

I certainly see it quite clearly.

[George II]

70. Not true. I'll leave it at that.

[Cha]

71. For good reason.. I trust

the Dems I've grown to respect over the years on DU

[betsuni]

81. "Hate" and "divisive" have new meanings, like the words "progressive" and "establishment."

Means mentioning someone's history, voting record, words and deeds that actually happened. That's "hate." But calling someone a corporate ***** corrupt warmonger is constructive criticism.

[Cha]

82. I totally agree.. TY for saying that.

It's distracting from what's really going on.

[TexasTowelie]

72. Bernie isn't any other Democrat.

He may receive special consideration by the administrator of this site, but he is not a Democrat by his own admission.

[brooklynite]

74. Expressing a lack of admiration for tweets and fundraising emails isn't "hate"

[Tribetime]

77. These five post just proved my point

[Nixie]

79. His time might be better spent explaining how we

got stuck with this conservative Supreme Court.

[Tribetime]

80. I'm sorry if I'm out of the loop but is he responsible for that

[Demsrule86]

85. Sure you do; it has to do with losing the 16 election...and Democrats agree completely with what

Sen. Sanders said. The issue is if it can be accomplished given our current circumstances.

[gulliver]

78. I'll wait for Biden to weigh in

He's the leader