Senator Amy Klobuchar appeared on CNN in an effort to fear monger her way into the minds of pro-life women and stir up hysteria amongst the pro-choice radicals. She claimed some of her Republican colleagues support abortion rights but not enough to overcome the chamber’s rule requiring 60 of its 100 members to agree on legislation.
The nation’s 6-3 conservative top court this week allowed Texas’ six-week abortion ban to go into effect, which observers said showed the justices may be ready to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a national right to abortion.
That decision led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to declare that the Democratic-controlled chamber will soon debate and vote on legislation aimed at stopping similar state anti-abortion regulations. But Klobuchar said that bill faces little to no chance of passing the Senate.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar says the Senate should abolish the filibuster in order to codify abortion rights after the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ restrictive anti-abortion law to stand: “Now and over the next years, we just will get nowhere if we keep this filibuster in place.” pic.twitter.com/7ZexK03wdp
— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) September 5, 2021
Progressive Democrats have repeatedly over the past year suggested doing away with the filibuster to allow other Democratic priorities to pass, including a voting rights bill intended to counteract a wave of new voting restrictions passed by Republican-governed states.
Senate moderates, including Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, have rejected that idea, however.
Klobuchar addressed the concerns many Republicans (and historically many Democrats) had with abolishing the filibuster, which prevents the majority party from sliding through its entire legislative agenda with little opposition. She said one way to discourage the frequency of using filibusters would be to bring back what was once called the “talking filibuster.” This chamber rule would require those senators who object to a piece of legislation actually remain on the floor in debate until an agreement is made. This tradition was prevalent in the U.S. Senate until the 1970s.
In today’s explosive, hyper-partisan political climate, you can imagine how ineffective the talking filibuster would be in practice.
Author: Sebastian Hayworth
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
