Senator Joe Manchin III, the centrist Democrat from West Virginia who opposes abortion rights, said Wednesday that he would break with his party and vote against taking up a bill to enshrine those rights in federal law, arguing that the legislation was overly broad.
Mr. Manchin’s opposition does not change the outcome of Wednesday’s vote; even if every Democrat supported the Women’s Health Protection Act, they were still all but certain to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance it over unified Republican opposition. But it reflected at least some degree of division among Democrats about how far to go in protecting abortion access.
Speaking to reporters ahead of the vote, Mr. Manchin said he would support a narrow bill to codify the Roe v. Wade precedent. But he said he could not back the measure Democrats are currently seeking to bring up, which goes substantially further.
“We’re going to have a piece of legislation in front of us that is not what I was hoping for, or what I expected,” Mr. Manchin said. He said he could not support the bill being proposed on Wednesday because it “wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion. With that, that’s not where we are today.”
He added: “It’s just disappointing that we’re going to be voting on a piece of legislation that I will not vote for today.”
The Women’s Health Protection Act lays out a lengthy list of prohibited restrictions and limits on abortion, many of which have been enacted by states since Roe was decided, effectively putting abortion nearly or entirely out of reach in some places. For instance, it would bar mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.
In February, Mr. Manchin voted against bringing up a nearly identical measure. Since then, Democrats stripped out a lengthy series of findings, including passages that referred to abortion restrictions as “a tool of gender oppression.” They also took out a section clarifying that while the bill referred to women, it was meant to protect the rights of “every person capable of becoming pregnant,” including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. But the substance of the bill is unchanged.
While his opposition was not a surprise, some of his colleagues had seen a glimmer of hope earlier in the week that Mr. Manchin might come around, when he said he would “wait and see” what his colleagues had to say about the bill before deciding how to vote.
Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who also opposes abortion rights and had previously voted against bringing up a similar measure, on Tuesday switched his position and said he would support the bill.
He said that his position had changed because of the imminent threat to reproductive rights posed by the leaked Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin were the lone Democrats who did not sponsor the legislation.
www.nytimes.com
Mr. Manchin’s opposition does not change the outcome of Wednesday’s vote; even if every Democrat supported the Women’s Health Protection Act, they were still all but certain to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance it over unified Republican opposition. But it reflected at least some degree of division among Democrats about how far to go in protecting abortion access.
Speaking to reporters ahead of the vote, Mr. Manchin said he would support a narrow bill to codify the Roe v. Wade precedent. But he said he could not back the measure Democrats are currently seeking to bring up, which goes substantially further.
“We’re going to have a piece of legislation in front of us that is not what I was hoping for, or what I expected,” Mr. Manchin said. He said he could not support the bill being proposed on Wednesday because it “wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion. With that, that’s not where we are today.”
He added: “It’s just disappointing that we’re going to be voting on a piece of legislation that I will not vote for today.”
The Women’s Health Protection Act lays out a lengthy list of prohibited restrictions and limits on abortion, many of which have been enacted by states since Roe was decided, effectively putting abortion nearly or entirely out of reach in some places. For instance, it would bar mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.
In February, Mr. Manchin voted against bringing up a nearly identical measure. Since then, Democrats stripped out a lengthy series of findings, including passages that referred to abortion restrictions as “a tool of gender oppression.” They also took out a section clarifying that while the bill referred to women, it was meant to protect the rights of “every person capable of becoming pregnant,” including transgender men and nonbinary individuals. But the substance of the bill is unchanged.
While his opposition was not a surprise, some of his colleagues had seen a glimmer of hope earlier in the week that Mr. Manchin might come around, when he said he would “wait and see” what his colleagues had to say about the bill before deciding how to vote.
Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who also opposes abortion rights and had previously voted against bringing up a similar measure, on Tuesday switched his position and said he would support the bill.
He said that his position had changed because of the imminent threat to reproductive rights posed by the leaked Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Casey and Mr. Manchin were the lone Democrats who did not sponsor the legislation.
How a Bill to Protect Abortion Access Failed in the Senate
After Republicans blocked the legislation intended to preserve rights established by Roe v. Wade, Democrats vowed to keep fighting, with an eye on midterm elections.
