Women's Health Protection Act Blocked ... SOTU

Folks, advancing liberty and justice also requires protecting the rights of women. The constitutional right affirmed by Roe v. Wade, standing precedent for half a century, is under attack as never before. If you want to go forward not backwards, we must protect access to healthcare — (applause); preserve a woman’s right to choose — (applause); and continue to advance maternal healthcare for all Americans. (Applause.)

It's March 2022. So, we have President Biden's first true State of the Union, which is referenced in the Constitution. You know, the duty to from time to time provide information of the state of the Union.  Biden was only a child back then.  They didn't reference him personally.

The "constitutional right" affirmed by Roe v. Wade is the right to privacy.  In particular, it involves the right to choose an abortion. Not that Biden actually wants to use that word.  See, for instance, a statement in reply to a failure to advance the Women's Health Protection Act.  

(The failure to say "abortion" is bothersome.  It is duly noted that at issue is a lot more than abortion. Abortion is part of a wider concern, including rights and health care.  But, abortion specifically is at risk now. Say the word.)  

It was flagged that the vote was not even a majority.  The bill has the support of forty-eight Democratic senators, one of whom is still out after a health issue, another who didn't vote here. But, it is notable that this was a procedural vote.  People voted against even letting them move things to the next stage.  And, like Jen Psaki said, we are basically talking about Senate Republicans.  Manchin wast the lone Democrat (guess Casey did not vote).

Two Democrats are against abortion rights (Bob Casey and Joe Manchin; here Sinema is on the right side).  And, the two (though at times you hear of a third) putative pro-choice Republicans found a reason to vote against it.  A few senators didn't vote, so the final vote here was 46-48.  To yet again even block debate.  Which is ridiculous.

The pro-choice Republican duo (who voted for the three Trumpies, if not voting once in each case) offers an alternative.  They argue this one goes too far.  50 votes (at most) still is not enough.  The vote was clearly a message vote and their message was to find a way to vote against abortion rights.  Not having sixty votes, it is not like "it's better than nothing" (surely is) is so much better here.  If they brought eight more, come back to me.

And, with the Barrett Court, a law that merely reaffirms Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden test is dubious.  It means a lot less with this Court than it did even when Roberts was the fifth vote.  This means the Women's Protection Act going "beyond" it is especially not some damning thing. 

What "conscience" problem did the Women's Health Act risk?  That's another thing people like Collins flag.  The actual threat with RFRA in place, as seen in Hobby Lobby, is to people who want abortion rights.  Or, even birth control.  

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not — I’m not going to make a — I’m not going to make a judgement for other people.

President Biden considers himself a Catholic and received ashes for Ash Wednesday.  This also leads to some, including at press briefings, certain people to challenge his bona fides on abortion.  But, he -- like many who self-represent as Catholic -- thinks being pro-choice honors religious freedom.  Is religious conscience actually a one-way ratchet? 

March is Women's History Month (thus, black women get 59 days) as well being six months in for SB8.  Hope for abortion rights via the Congress with this Senate is dubious.  A serious attempt would at least be to allow this thing to go to debate, where concerns about reach can be debated. 

And, then the final path will be blocked by filibuster or Collins/Murkowski will find some other thing to fault it with.  But, I guess the Dobbs ruling coming down is the logical next guidepost.  Will it have enough fig leaf to it to allow the pro-choice Republican twins to be satisfied?

===

As to the State of the Union overall, I listened to it.  It seemed pretty  good, if nothing too special.  A few nice moments, including some cute boy and Breyer looking goofy and embarrassed when President Biden singled him out for praise (including noting his military service).  

Ukraine dominated the top.  The usual wish list stuff is nothing surprising, including some attempt to promote a common ground, and to pat on the back various successes including the infrastructure law. Some were annoyed he didn't bash the Republicans some more, but that his both not his m.o. and his view of what a national SOTU is meant to do. 

Anyway, I saw some poll that said the public at large liked it. I am not generally a big fan of speeches. This one wasn't special.  Overall, however, it reaffirms my faith and judgment about Biden being an intelligent and honorable person. Like Obama, somewhat less at times Clinton, I am proud to have voted for the guy.  At least, unless you are a strong partisan the other way, it's hard to see how you can't at least respect him.

Poll data and so forth suggest that is a bit of a dream.  Oh well.