Are Collins and Murkowski serious about an alternative law to protect women's rights

Collins and Murkowski proposed an alternative to codify Roe back in February. I don’t know tons of details about the two laws but there is some info here. My impression is the proposal by Collins and Murkowski allows for religious exemptions for medical providers, allows states to limit third trimester abortions, allows states to give anti-abortion material to patients, allows states to require parental notification for minors seeking abortions, etc. however they claim it aligns with the womens rights outlined in the Roe and Casey decisions.

However I don’t have any faith in Collins, she seems very dishonest in how she dealt with Trump, Kavanaugh, the ACA, etc. So I don’t know if this is just another scam she is pulling.

But if shes serious, I’m assuming they could get 51 votes (maybe Manchin would support this one too, I don’t know). But would they be able to get a filibuster carveout because I don’t see any of the other 48 republicans supporting this.

Murkowski would benefit politically if she became a hardcore pro-life crusader, Collins is in a mixed position because Maine has a tolerance for Republicans but isn’t particularly socially conservative. Both are experienced politicians and know that their bill simply cannot ever pass in the Senate. I think Murkowski probably genuinely is more genuinely pro-choice–she actually would have a much easier life in Alaska if she was a firebreather, but she’s also not willing to absolutely buck her party, so she supports a bill that she probably does believe in but knows will never pass. Collins I am much less sure of, she seems more a creature of pure opportunism, I suspect if she was from Kansas she would ape a firebreather for votes, but in Maine she benefits more from appearing centrist–she seems opportunistic enough to me I don’t have a good feel for what her “real” opinions are.

Well…two republicans voting for it would help a lot. Hopefully Manchin would get on board (not sure).

I say go for it. Lock in whatever protections they can now, today. It may not be ideal but we need to take what we can get for now.

I’m sure Collins is deeply concerned.

Would laws like these pass a constitutional test? If Roe is overturned and the Supreme Court declares that abortions are not constitutionally protected, does Congress have the authority to enact laws regarding abortions? I feel federal laws like this would be struck down by the courts based on an enumerated powers argument.

I’ll grant that Congress has the authority to enact laws allowing women to travel out of state to obtain an abortion, overriding state laws which prohibit that. That’s interstate commerce.

With this supreme court who knows. But, section 5 of the 14th amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

At the least it kicks the can down the road for years as the legal process grinds away at it.

Seems like it could be covered by the Commerce Clause to me, especially since several red states are trying to directly target interstate commcerce by punishing people who cross state lines to get a legal abortion elsewhere.

It seems to me as though it’s been ruled that basically any commerce is interstate commerce, and even non-commercial activity is covered there because it affects interstate commerce. Therefore they could protect even abortion within a state, probably.

Granted, if there is one Supreme Court decision above all others that, while foundational for a lot of laws, I think was wrongly decided, it’s Wickard v. Filburn, and I’d kinda support that decision being reversed, even though it seems like that would create one gigantic clusterfuck since it would mean a lot of what the federal government does it would no longer have the authority to do.

Probably a debate for another thread but I think Wickard v. Filburn is better viewed under the Necessary and Proper Clause and not the Commerce Clause (although they are intertwined).

Concerned and alarmed!

I interpreted their bill as providing themselves political cover to vote against the Dem bill while claiming to be pro choice. Don’t know for sure that that’s their motivation, but it seems to me to fit the facts, and at least in Collins case seems to fit her work style.

And a Federalist Society judge imposes a nationwide injunction that SCOTUS refuses to review.

Does an injunction continue if no court will hear the case?

That was part of my point. This Supreme Court is overturning Roe. Why would it then allow allegedly pro-choice federal laws to be enacted when it had clear grounds to rule against them?

Now if things were the other way around and Congress was trying to enact pro-life laws that restricted abortions in pro-choice states, this Supreme Court might be willing to look the other way and allow those laws.

No, they aren’t serious.

Ostensibly Alito says this is not a constitutional issue. It is up to legislatures.

I have no doubt he’d find another way to bullshit us though and overrule that too.

I agree. If the legislatures enact laws that Alito doesn’t agree with, Alito will cite constitutional issues and overturn them. Similarly, if Congress enacts laws Alito doesn’t like, he’ll cite enumerated powers to overturn them. But if states enact laws Alito doesn’t like, he’ll cite federal supremacy to overturn them.

Alito can always find some legal principle to claim to be upholding. But what he’s actually doing is legislating from the bench.

In terms of a big issue which would seem to meet the requirement of “affecting interstate commerce” is Covid. And thus it seemed to me that the federal government could mandate any lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, tests, whatever it wanted–yet Biden didn’t pursue such mandates–except in very limited circumstances which were clearly federal.

There is a big difference between the supreme court saying the government cannot do a thing and the government just choosing not to do a thing.

That is not to say the Biden admin was right. It’s just a different conversation.

IANAL but my understanding is an injunction stays in-effect until the judge issuing it removes it, a higher court does the same, or the underlying case is resolved.

So if the Honorable Rufus T Firefly issues a nationwide injunction and no court will hear an appeal, it stays in-effect.