Los Angeles Times

Democrats’ hands are tied without voters’ support

Seething senators acknowledg­e that they don’t have the numbers to fight back.

- By Jennifer Haberkorn

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Capitol Hill were spitting fire Tuesday in the wake of the leak of a Supreme Court draft ruling overturnin­g abortion rights, but acknowledg­ed their hands are tied unless voters deliver them a strong majority in Congress this fall.

“It is hard not to feel angry, troubled and deeply disturbed about what overturnin­g Roe would do to women across America,” said Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y.), surrounded by Senate Democrats on the steps of the Capitol, staring down the Supreme Court building. “The decision would be an abominatio­n, an abominatio­n; one of the worst ever in modern history.”

The draft decision to undo 50 years of abortion rights and the unpreceden­ted leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion decision rattled Capitol Hill. But it did nothing to immediatel­y alter abortion politics in the closely divided Senate, which is narrowly controlled by Democrats. There are not enough senators who support abortion rights to overcome a filibuster or, as of now, to create a 51-vote majority.

Democrats are left with no tools in their toolbox to combat the Supreme Court’s expected decision besides holding out hope that the coming state abortion bans — 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion if given the chance — will galvanize voters to deliver them overwhelmi­ng majorities in Congress this fall.

“The reality is that we have to organize and we have to win elections,” said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.). “If we win the election and we have a majority in the Senate that we can work with, then we can talk about issues like the filibuster and other steps that we can take to reclaim the courts.”

Even if the fall of Roe is the powerful motivating political force Democrats hope it to be, it would be months until the next Congress would convene in January and would be able to do something about it, such as enact a federal law authorizin­g abortion rights.

And even so, Democrats would need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a GOP filibuster — an all but insurmount­able figure given the mixture of states that will hold Senate elections this fall — or 50 Democrats who are willing to overturn the filibuster to save abortion rights.

Democrats warned that the court, by taking apart the underpinni­ngs of the Roe decision, will undermine other privacy-based rulings, such as those establishi­ng the right to use contracept­ion, same-sex marriage and interracia­l marriage. They said the growing threat would provide additional pressure to undo the legislativ­e filibuster, or the 60 votes needed to enact most legislatio­n.

“There is a powerful dynamic to modify the filibuster in a way that permits us to move forward in protecting reproducti­ve rights,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Sens. Susan Collins (RMaine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), both of whom voted for justices appointed by Donald Trump who were thought to support the draft ruling, expressed surprise about the draft opinion. Collins said the ruling would be “completely inconsiste­nt with what Justice [Neil M.] Gorsuch and Justice [Brett M.] Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

At the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmati­on hearing, Collins — who was the 50th vote for confirmati­on — made well-circulated comments that she didn’t believe Kavanaugh would overturn Roe.

Murkowski indicated that she, too, was told during the confirmati­on process that Roe was settled law.

“If in fact this draft is where the court ends up ... it has rocked my confidence in the court. That is because I think there were some representa­tions made with regard to precedent and settled,” she said. “Comments were made to me and others about Roe being settled.”

In hopes of keeping political pressure on the issue, Schumer promised the Senate would vote on a bill to establish abortion rights nationwide. It is expected to be a slightly modified version of the Women’s Health Protection Act.

Democrats framed the original bill as “codifying Roe,” though it would go further by prohibitin­g states from enacting restrictio­ns on abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, or about 24 weeks, and in postviabil­ity cases when the patient’s life or health is at risk.

It would also curtail GOP efforts to enact roadblocks to abortion access in the states by prohibitin­g policies such as waiting periods, ultrasound requiremen­ts or demands that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. It is not yet clear what changes Democrats may make to the language.

When the Senate held its first vote on the measure in February, only 46 of the 50 Democrats supported the procedural vote (although three more were expected to have supported it if they had not been absent).

On a repeat vote, “there’s no evidence to think that those votes are going to succeed,” Smith said. “But at least people will know where every single member stands.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States