Here is a copy of the Collins-Murkowski bill

[exboyfil]

The House should pass it immediately.

https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/rca_bill_text.pdf

Senate should work towards a filibuster carve out for it.

[lapfog_1]

1. They need to define "fetal viability"

without that there will still be a hodgepodge of laws on the books in different states.

Plus they need to say where abortion clinics can be located and staffed, and declare that abortion providers cannot be criminally charged.

[Hugin]

2. Reactionary bills always only make matters worse...

Suzy needs to stick to sternly worded letters for her face-lifts.

[Phoenix61]

3. Nope,

(3) may enact regulations to further the health
15 or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a preg-
16 nancy.

[femmedem]

4. I believe that means states may codify protections for women whose pregnancies endanger them. n/t

[Phoenix61]

7. It will mean whatever the state wants it to mean.

We need to make sure she has accurate information so counseling with the doctor then a 24 hour period to think about it before the procedure.
Must have an ultrasound.
Etc

[femmedem]

18. Good point. n/t

[femmedem]

5. Good. At this point we need to pass whatever protections we can pass

rather than forcing a performative vote on something we know will fail.

[Jerry2144]

6. Here's the proposal for the bill containing the correct limits

“Abortion services shall be authorized only for people who are pregnant or may become pregnant and are authorized for only these three reasons;
1. Rape or incest
2. The life and health of the mother
3. None of your business you goddamned godbotherers.
Abortion services shall be covered with no copay, no waiting period, no cost to the patient, and fully covered by there insurance company or the state in the event the patient has no insurance. “

[rso]

8. Collins

It’s moot as long as they oppose a filibuster carve out.

[Johnny2X2X]

9. Yeah

There are only 3 Republicans in the Senate who are pro choice. In order for this to pass, they absolutely would need to end the filabuster for the vote.

[getagrip_already]

10. Didn't Collins already say she opposes a federal law

Codifying roe?

This is just codifying the scotus opinion.

[Calista241]

13. If I read properly, she opposes the Democrat bill codifying Roe.

But she's proposed this bill with Murkowski that would be a limited federal abortion access law.

[inthewind21]

16. Collins and Murkowski

Can both fuck right off. They BOTH voted to confirm these assholes. If they were too dumb to see what the rest of the country did they need to GTFO of congress. Some vague bill that they BOTH KNOW will never see the light of day is too little too late.

[Hoyt]

11. Assuming it's even serious and has a chance of reaching floor, should be considered.

If we can't accept something like that, we'll be stuck with the final SC opinion.

[Buckeyeblue]

12. I agree. It could be better but it acknowledges that abortion is legal

It buys some time. I also think it makes the Texas law illegal. I like the language around undue burden, although this court will set the bar low on that.

My only concern is this legislation and passing this legislation a ploy to try to avoid abortion being the main midterm issue? I wonder if we'll see some "safe" republican support with the idea that a republican pres and congress will reverse it.

I would like the midterms to be a referendum on on anti-choicers.

[Ms. Toad]

17. Agreed.

It is a quick solution which would maintain the status quo. It would likely invalidate the worst state laws, which would not be legal under Roe (the likely legal factor which tipped the scale to overturning Roe v. nipping away at it).

Not ideal, but it would at least stave off disaster.

[rso]

14. Collins

But are Collins and Murkowski willing to create a filibuster carve out for Collins’ bill ? Otherwise, it’s all for naught.

[rso]

15. Murkowski

The House cannot pass a bill introduced in the Senate before the Senate passes it.

[myccrider]

19. Uhm, correct me if I'm misremembering, but...

doesn’t the Supreme Court determine which laws passed by Congress are constitutional (if challenged, and either one of these will be ((or would be, if they could pass)) challenged, for sure) and then we’re supposed to think that the same majority of judges on the SC would vote differently on a new law like this?

This strategy confuses me a bit , although it could be primarily for the PR and to make the SC ‘say’ it again.