When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years.

It’s not JUST about means, motive, opportunity. There has to be the desire to spend the political capital. I think it’s interesting no one in 50 years with all the majority make ups have put the effort in.

I don’t speculate a reason other than it seems more expensive than the media might have me believe?

What do you mean he never tried? How do you know that? Obama never had the votes to overcome the filibuster for abortion rights, he was struggling to even get the ACA passed. Why publicly focus on legislation that's impossible to pass, especially when it's already the law of the land?

During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote."

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."

There were conservative democrats such as Manchin and leiberman who beleived their constituents weren't in favor of abortion rights. A straight party line vote on abortion rights wasn't going to happen. There were also republicans in more urban states that knew the majority of their constituents favored abortion, but because they were worried about being primaried they wouldn't vote for abortion rights.

Do people not remember that Joe Lieberman single-handedly torpedoed the public option? He's a liberal in the same way that my dog is a cat.

Sure but the possibility of getting dem senators from red states to vote for abortion was extremely, extremely unlikely. Republicans tend to stick together but Democrats do not on these slim "majorities". Check out Manchin and Senema, they are essentially moderate republicans despite their party affiliation. They are heavily sponsored by right wing corps and PACS.

>"especially when it's already the law of the land?"

I believe Roe was the precedent of the land and not something explicitly codified into federal law.

Supreme court rulings are law in this country because of Marbury v. Madison. You can try to claim precedent and law are somehow different, I think you'd have an incredibly hard time convincing most people.

Marbury v Madison established judicial review, meaning that the courts can strike down unconstitutional law. It does not give the courts legislative ability.

Maybe you're using a fuzzier definition of "law", but there was never any federal legislation that guaranteed access to abortion. That is what we need.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the legal systems in the US (the federal system and 49 states), which are Common Law[0] systems (Louisiana uses a French style "Civil Law" system):

"In law, common law, also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law, is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[2][3][4] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

If you scroll to the US section of the article you linked, you will see that the federal government does not have a common-law system.

Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law"

Though it does kind of make sense, after all it's the United States of America, not the United People's of America, or the United Local Jurisdictions of America.

The States can have rights that supersedes the people apparently.

>Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law"

My reading of the particular passage[0] in the Wikipedia article is that while Federal courts are no longer independent sources of common law, they operate along with other systems that are, and often impact the common law of the several states with rulings that set the limits of Federal, State and individual power.

As such, the reality is a bit more complicated,

N.B.: IANAL and this is not legal advice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_feder...

It wouldn't make sense the other way around, since whenever individual rights contradict that of the State's, the federal court(s) would effectively undo the basis of their sovereignty.

> It does not give the courts legislative ability.

But it does. Our common law system treats judicial rulings as law. There is nothing stopping the supreme court from ruling on literally anything they like. They could make cars illegal in the next session if they wanted.

The filibuster is basically an imaginary rule that can be changed or modified by a simple majority at any time. It’s irrelevant.

Not when legislators refuse to overturn it. That's obviously an issue too, but it's not really related to the problem here, which is that the two party system causes many people to have their opinions unrepresented.

It's a lot like fiat currency, it has respect of "all". Parties know if they kill the filibuster, the next time that the pendulum swings back everything they did will get thrown on the trash heap.

There is an element of truth to this but we’ve seen the filibuster selectively weakened to accomplish a specific goal under Mitch McConnell as well as Harry Reid before him. Its been done by both just within the last 2 presidencies, and there’s no good reason to assume your opponent won’t be the one to do it first when it suits them.

> When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years.

The cynic in me thinks that neither party wants this issue to go away because it fills voting booths.

Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try. They could also get some buy-in from on-the-fence people and maybe even a few very centrist Republicans in bluish states with a compromise that codifies protection for abortions in the first trimester but nope.

If Republicans really were serious about adoption as an alternative they'd make reforming and funding adoption and foster care a huge priority. They'd also entertain medicare coverage for uninsured women giving birth even if it's to be given up for adoption so as to remove the financial incentive for abortion. But nope.

Why solve a problem or find a viable compromise when the controversy gets you elected? Culture war controversies also distract from incompetence and corruption.

> Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try

This is a big flaw in your thinking. The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings. Their leadership signals how they should vote and they follow. The democrats act more an independent collective of votes that happen to align on many issues, but not all.

If you crack open any historical votes you would clearly see this is a lie.

Have they ever even tried? Even with a compromise bill?

> The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings.

Can you really not see it in yourself when you post things like this?

> Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try. They could also get some buy-in from on-the-fence people and maybe even a few very centrist Republicans in bluish states with a compromise that codifies protection for abortions in the first trimester but nope.

When were these chances? I don't think there have ever been 60 pro-abortion votes in the Senate.

> I don't think there have ever been 60 pro-abortion votes in the Senate.

How do you know, since, again, no one even tried?

Empirical knowledge is not the only knowledge there is.

Joe Manchin's pro-life and been in since 2010

Blanche Lincoln voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Mark Pryor voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Kent Conrad voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Byron Dorgan voted for the partial birth abortion ban

etc. etc. etc.

Codifying Roe is double sided sword. If Congress has the power to legalize abortion (under some commerce clause interpretation), it likely has the power to ban abortion nationwide.

That's what I've been telling my friends about killing the filibuster. It may be the only thing stopping a blanket federal ban in 2024 when Republicans re-elect Trump (or Trump lite, Desantis)

No one put the effort it because it would be completely meaningless. The same Supreme Court that upheld the Mississippi law would obviously toss out any federal “codification”

No they wouldn't. They didn't say anything about this being only a states rights thing, otherwise they would say things like the civil rights laws that were passed in the 60s were unconstitutional, and they have said nothing of that nature (yet).

Ruling that the constitution does not grant the right to abortion is also saying that legislating abortion is not an enumerated power. That means that any federal law that bans/bans banning abortion would be unconstitutional unless you come up with a commerce clause reason. Hard to see that flying with this court, so it seems to be up to the states now.

Are you aware Mississippi has a ban at 15 weeks?

That is three weeks longer than France, Denmark, and Germany among others in Europe. In Germany you have mandatory counseling the tries to talk you out of it first.

I encourage you to read the concurring opinions. One justice concurs to explicitly point out that this decision does not make abortion illegal, but merely returns it to the legislative process.

He means the state level legislative process.

Yes, exactly my point

No, it's the opposite of your point.

Tossing a federal law “codifying” a federal right to abortion would not make abortion illegal

> So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of the country wants some level of abortion rights

some level of abortion rights != Roe and the extent of Roe

I'd imagine an easy majority supports it in cases of threats to the mother's life, but does an easy majority support letting Roe stand without any sort of weakening? I doubt it

I've seen your comments in this thread questioning what the American public actually wants. You don't need to wonder - there have been countless polls over the past fifty years that will tell you in detail:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393275/steady-americans-not-roe...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099844097/abortion-polling-r...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identificatio...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/upholding-roe-v-wade-is-support...

I mean, look no further than the law that was being decided for this case. It banned abortions after 15 weeks, unless there’s a severe deformity or life of the mother.

This seems like the type of abortion “rights” that would get broad-based support across the aisle.

I imagine there will be a few states that outright ban abortion. But I think it will be a very small number, less than 10. And I think they will quickly change that position over the next 10 years.

I know that doesn’t help the people who live there now who want an abortion. But this ruling is not going to end abortion in America. That’s a guarantee.

That doesn't stand up to examination, currently Republicans are seeking to ban all abortions including of those involving rape or incest, some even go as far as forcing women to give birth even if it could be deadly to the mother. I suspect soon they will go for declaring it as 1st degree murder. They really have no shame and feel completely empowered by their cultish adoption of MAGA principals.