Call your Senators and Representatives and make an exception to the filibuster to codify Roe

[JohnSJ]

Rep. Jayapal was on Joy Reid saying this, and she is rights.

We can't worry about who might or might not support the exception to the filibuster to codify Roe, we have to try, and it has to be done before the midterms.

This is the last best chance we have to stop anti-abortion states from endangering women's lives

https://www.democraticunderground.com1017746605#post3

At the minimum if the Democrats don't try this, win or lose, than frankly they aren't doing the job they were elected to do

[msongs]

1. how many votes does it take to "codify roe" nt

[PoliticAverse]

3. It takes 50 Senators to vote to override the filibuster and to vote for the bill. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. Representatives in the House have no role in the Senate filibuster. n/t

[JohnSJ]

4. I know, but they need to pass it by a simple majority

[Demsrule86]

12. Manchin is a hard no on this...I don't know about Sinema. So it can't be done unless we win the

Midterm. Fired up and ready to go...let's get to work...there is no point until we have the votes. Send Congress home to campaign.

[Bettie]

5. MY senators are Grassley and Ernst

card carrying members of the death cult.

[JohnSJ]

6. Then call Schumer and Pelosi to bring it up for a vote. The Senate has to make an exception for

the filibuster to have a chance to get it passed before the midterms

It is very doable if we just codify Roe and don’t add anything else to it.

Not sure if Manchin or Sinema will go for it, but if we don’t even try before the midterms, then the opportunity may not happen for some time

[Demsrule86]

13. No, there is no point when you don't have the votes and it makes you look weak.

[BlueTsunami2018]

7. I don't know why they didn't just send a straight up codification bill to the Senate.

Just that, no add ons or expansions. Manchin said he would have voted for that, call his bluff.

[Demsrule86]

14. We would need 60 votes unless both Manchin and Sinema vote to end the filibuster for the

legislation. And I know Manchin won't.

[luv2fly]

8. Yeah I'll be calling Ron Johnson right away...

Not.

Totally pointless to call that man's office. All you get is the party line.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. Which would mean that a future Republican majority Senate

could turn around and make abortion illegal nationwide. And why stop there? Goodbye marriage equality.

Think this through people.

This is a potential timebomb.

[JohnSJ]

10. That timebomb was gone when McConnel refused President Obama's SC appointment, and what

trump and the republicans did in the last four years, with draconian SC appointments who lied at their confirmation hearings and abusive policies

It has no purpose anymore, and the republicans will remove it in a NY minute when it suits them. After everything that has happened, that is one thing that we should understand

[Just A Box Of Rain]

11. Which, as we all know, was "excused" by McConnell

after Reid ended the judicial filibuster for lower court appointments.

The filibuster certainly does have a purpose. It would keep a GOP-led government from simply voting away our rights with a simple majority.

Don't kid yourself. This is a fucking dangerous strategy that could bite us in the ass.

[JohnSJ]

17. It was ended by Reid because it was abused by McConnel again, who would NOT allow any of President

Obama's judicial appointments through

It isn't any more fucking dangerous than the way it has been abused throughout its existence.

The filibuster was started by Southern senators to uphold slavery, and as a mechanism to block civil rights legislation

It has been abused too long, and time to allow a simple majority as they do in the House

[Just A Box Of Rain]

18. The logic of our government is for the Senate to be unlike the House.

The House has elections every two years and is intended to reflect the mood of the moment.

The Senate is the opposite. It serves as a break on wild swings of the moment.

There are serious downsides that need to be considered here.

[JohnSJ]

19. I used to be aligned with your position, but I have changed, and we will just agree to disagree

on this

[Just A Box Of Rain]

20. With due respect, this is not *my* position

it is the way the Senate was designed to work, as a break on majoritarian impulses. including ones emanating from the populist right that could sweep away our rights.

This is playing with fire in my estimation.

[JohnSJ]

21. It isn't part of the Constitution, and at the time was created it was used to preserve slavery and

states rights, and as a tool to block legislation

[Demsrule86]

15. Tell me where the votes to end the filibuster will come in the Senate for this or any bill?

[JohnSJ]

16. There are two issues here. The filibuster removal referred to in the OP is just for this exception,

to codify Roe, not a blanket removal for everything. That won't happen because of Manchin and Sinema

However, for just an exception for Roe it is definitely doable. I don't know where Manchin and Sinema stand on this specific exemption, but Murkowski has indicated she would be for Roe, and perhaps so would Collins.

Biden would not have mentioned that specifically in the press conference today if he didn't think it was possible.

Regardless, the Democrats have to try before the midterms, or what they are saying is empty talk

As for a general removal of the filibuster, that would require a win in the Senate by at least two additional seats, and the earliest that could happen is after the midterms only if we win enough of a Senate majority

Because of what the SC did with Roe, women's lives are at risk. Ectopic or molar pregnancies are a life threatening danger to a woman, and there are a good number of states who allow no exceptions