> But removing the filibuster wasn’t even in the tables or discussed half-way seriously when those majorities had power.

It was with the current majority, and explicitly rejected by key Democrats.

> Even if it had, a federal abortion ban would have been passed the next time the GOP held a trifecta.

It still will.

I agree that the filibuster should have been on the table for removal. I think on paper it's ridiculous, and question the effectiveness of a governing body that needs it to function.

Because I think this one probably does. With how divided we are today, and this issue in particular, I don't think you can rely on a 50%+1 majority to pass a law one way or the other. That is like a coin flip. It seems guaranteed to lead to chaos, as each new majority rushes to redress the 'mistakes' of the preceding Congress.

And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking, but I wonder what you think about a 50/50 Senate depending on the VP to break ties. To remove the filibuster. To pass a nationwide abortion law.

Come on.

> And to be pedantic, the Democratic party does not have a current majority in the Senate. It's 50/48/2 Republican; Sanders and King caucus with the Democrats but King in particular is very centrist, endorsed the Republican Collins for her reelection bid, and votes with the Republicans most of the time. Maybe you think that is just nitpicking

No, I don't think it's nitpicking I think it is factually wrong (except that, yes, Sanders and King are Independents). Not only does King vote with the Dems on most important votes, he's not even the most centrist or least loyal to the caucus member of the Democratic Caucus; In the current session, on key issues, if the caucus fails to gather the majority it needs (which usually means there is no vote: Schumer is pretty consistent about that), it is usually Manchin (D-WV) and /or Sinema (D-AZ) — more often the former — that is the problem. (And both of them are to King’s right by both current session and career voting history.)

Yes, Manchin and Sinema are more problematic. Still, I don't think you addressed my actual point, which is that removing the filibuster to pass federal abortion protection would be a big deal, and the best the Democrats could hope for today is a 50/50 vote with the VP breaking the tie. I'd personally be astonished if they even tried, not because they didn't feel like it but because it would very likely be a gun that blew up in their hand.

I believe this is the kind of issue where you'd have to overcome the filibuster, not remove it. This isn't something Democrats were realistically able to do in 2008-2010, and they definitely can't do it now.