US Sen. Robert Casey Jr. cast his lot with the radical abortion crowd this week. He not only betrayed his father's famous legacy, but his bargain with constituents.
Because this was a vote on the Motion to Proceed, rather than a vote on the bill itself, he will weasel his way out of this by saying he wasn’t voting in favor of the bill itself, he was merely voting to allow it to proceed to final consideration -- “I would have voted against it if it came to a final vote.” My view is that one of the reasons we are in this mess generally is the Senate no longer is able to agree to time agreements by Unanimous Consent to consider legislation, so almost every bill that comes to the Senate floor is subject to a Cloture vote. Cloture votes have in practice become votes in favor or against the underlying legislation. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. The Senate is broken procedurally.
Thanks for the comment. Actually, Sen. Casey said he would support both the motion to proceed and that he would vote for final passage. He erected a strawman argument that Republicans were going to advance a national version of the Texas ban on abortions (except to save the mother's life) after 6 weeks. Someone in Congress might introduce that, but Republicans have always been for returning the issue to the states where it belongs. Here's his full statement, from his Senate website:
“This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women’s Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future.
“In the nearly three months since the Senate last voted on the Women’s Health Protection Act, the circumstances around the entire debate on abortion have changed. In light of the leaked Supreme Court decision draft overturning Roe v. Wade, and subsequent reports that Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate will introduce legislation to enact a nationwide six-week ban, the real question of the moment is: do you support a categorical ban on abortion? During my time in public office, I have never voted for—nor do I support—such a ban."
Because this was a vote on the Motion to Proceed, rather than a vote on the bill itself, he will weasel his way out of this by saying he wasn’t voting in favor of the bill itself, he was merely voting to allow it to proceed to final consideration -- “I would have voted against it if it came to a final vote.” My view is that one of the reasons we are in this mess generally is the Senate no longer is able to agree to time agreements by Unanimous Consent to consider legislation, so almost every bill that comes to the Senate floor is subject to a Cloture vote. Cloture votes have in practice become votes in favor or against the underlying legislation. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. The Senate is broken procedurally.
Thanks for the comment. Actually, Sen. Casey said he would support both the motion to proceed and that he would vote for final passage. He erected a strawman argument that Republicans were going to advance a national version of the Texas ban on abortions (except to save the mother's life) after 6 weeks. Someone in Congress might introduce that, but Republicans have always been for returning the issue to the states where it belongs. Here's his full statement, from his Senate website:
“This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women’s Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future.
“In the nearly three months since the Senate last voted on the Women’s Health Protection Act, the circumstances around the entire debate on abortion have changed. In light of the leaked Supreme Court decision draft overturning Roe v. Wade, and subsequent reports that Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate will introduce legislation to enact a nationwide six-week ban, the real question of the moment is: do you support a categorical ban on abortion? During my time in public office, I have never voted for—nor do I support—such a ban."