Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Bidens economic agenda might be back from the dead. If the original proposal was Build Back Better, this is more like Build Back a Bit.

Democrats this week took the first formal step toward reviving a stripped-down version of the nearly $2 trillion plan that Senator Joe Manchin killed late last year. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Senate parliamentarian to review a proposed agreement that aims to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices directlya long-sought Democratic priority that Manchin supports. That is one major component of a deal Schumer and Manchin have been discussing that would include hundreds of billions of dollars to combat climate change along with deficit-slashing tax increases on the wealthy.

The deal could be ready for votes on the Senate floor by the end of this month, according to a Democrat familiar with the talks who described the development as major progress toward enacting a chunk of Bidens program before the midterm elections. Caveats abound: Schumer and Manchin have yet to complete either the tax or the climate portions of the bill, and the West Virginia centrist has abandoned negotiations before. With no Republican support, Democrats need the parliamentarian to determine whether their proposal can qualify for the process known as budget reconciliation, which would circumvent an expected filibuster and allow a bill to pass with a simple majority vote. A second Democratic aide, who like the first spoke anonymously to describe the delicate discussions, told me that a final deal would probably take several weeks and characterized the hopes for a vote before Congress breaks for its August recess as ambitious.

Read: Its not just Manchin

Yet the fact that the Schumer-Manchin talks have advanced even this far counts as a welcome surprise for Democrats, especially considering how acrimoniously the original Build Back Better negotiations collapsed in December. Manchin walked away after accusing the White House of putting his family at risk by singling him out in an otherwise anodyne statement describing the status of the discussions. In announcing his decision on Fox News, he further complained that the Democrats proposal was full of budget gimmicks and could worsen inflation. Because Manchin represented the crucial 50th vote in the evenly divided Senate, his departure ended Bidens hopes of delivering on a progressive agenda that initially included a federal paid-leave program, universal pre-kindergarten, free community college, and an extension of the presidents expanded child tax credit.

The negotiations remained dormant through the winter. There is no Build Back Better bill, Manchin told reporters in February. Its dead. But he and Schumer quietly began talking again in the spring, keeping their negotiations secret both to avoid the daily pestering of the Capitol Hill press corps and to prevent Democrats from getting their hopes up. Gone are many of the items on Bidens original wish list, as is the original $3.5 trillion price tag. The total revenue Schumer and Manchin now hope to generate through tax increases and drug-pricing reform is likely to be in the area of $1 trillion, with about $500 billion in new spending on climate and energy policies.

Any deal that Schumer and Manchin strike will probably win applause from the bulk of the Democratic Party, including progressives. A $1 trillion bill might seem paltry next to the dream of $3.5 trillion, but its a lot better than the nothing that most Democrats have expected to get for the past six months. The contours are fine, Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told me about the potential deal. He said the climate piece was by far the most important aspect of the package for progressives, especially in light of last months Supreme Court decision limiting the EPAs ability to fight climate change. We cant reverse the Trump tax cuts if the planet disintegrates. The other two [proposals] are political winners, Green said of the drug-pricing reforms and tax increases. Climate change is just existential for the planet, and this might be our last chance.

Robinson Meyer: The Supreme Courts EPA ruling is going to be very, very expensive

Another sign that the negotiations are serious is that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to torpedo them last week by threatening to pull GOP support from a bipartisan high-tech manufacturing bill if the Democrats moved forward with the one-party reconciliation progress. Schumers move today suggests that at least for now, McConnells warning hasnt scared off Manchin.

As I wrote last year, the political advantage of Bidens economic agenda was always its size and ambition, because that meant with slim margins in Congress, it could withstand plenty of cuts and still represent a significant legislative accomplishment. That remains true today, perhaps even more so. An agreement on drug pricing, climate spending, and tax increases, combined with Bidens $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1 trillion infrastructure law, and the recent bipartisan gun-safety compromise, would make the presidents legislative record look a lot more robust.

Politically, a scaled-down bill that passes close to the midterm elections, when it will be fresh in voters minds, might be just as beneficial to Democrats as a larger bill enacted months earlier. Each of the major components has clear constituencies. Lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a particular hit with seniors, a key voting bloc, and Democrats also plan to sell the change as a way to offset the impact of inflation. Combatting climate change is a priority of progressive and younger voters, whom Democrats need to turn out in November. And polls have long shown that tax increases on the wealthy are among the most broadly popular proposals in Bidens plan.

Members of Congress love their sports metaphors, and in that spirit, the emerging Schumer-Manchin proposal is less a Hail Mary pass than a long-field-goal attempt right before halftime. Substantively, none of the proposals would fully solve the problems they aim to address. The drug-pricing scheme is less ambitious than what Democrats initially wanted, and Manchin has already watered down some of the climate policies backed by progressives. Electorally, given persistent inflation and Bidens approval rating dipping into the 30s, maintaining the House majority may be impossible for Democrats (the Senate is another story). But taken as a whole, the package could help Democrats keep the score closeboth in their bid to deliver tangible results for their voters and in the battle for power in Congress this fall.

Link:
Democrats Try to Build Back (A Bit) Better - The Atlantic

Massachusetts leaders say they plan to dole out tax rebates of $250 to individual tax filers and $500 to married couples as part of a nationwide scramble by Democrats to ease the pain of inflation.

The commonwealth is expected to have a budget surplus, so leaders decided to join the ranks of states finding ways to spread cash around to families struggling with everyday costs.

Whether it is the rising price of gas, groceries, or summer clothes for kids, the Massachusetts legislature has heard loud and clear that increased costs due to inflation have cut into family budgets, said House Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen E. Spilka, both Democrats.

Eligibility for the tax rebates will be determined using 2021 income. Persons must have earned a minimum of $38,000 while the maximum income for those eligible will be $100,000 for individual filers and $150,000 for joint filers.

California announced a similar tax rebate in a budget deal Gov. Gavin Newsom reached with lawmakers last month.

Persons earning less than $75,000 per year will receive $350 as part of tax refunds in the $17 billion agreement while couples making less than $150,000 who file jointly are eligible for $700. Families in those categories with a dependent can qualify for another $350, meaning some families could see up to $1,050.

Californias budget addresses the states most pressing needs, and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries, said Mr. Newsom, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon after striking the deal last month.

People across the nation are reeling from the high cost of gas and everyday goods, as supply chains shake off the pandemic doldrums and Russias invasion of Ukraine puts pressure on the global demand for fuel.

Critics say President Biden and Democratic allies fueled inflation with generous stimulus payments in early 2021, overheating the economy as supply struggled to keep up with demand. At the same time, state and national Democrats say the government has a role to play in alleviating the sting of high prices.

Many individuals and states have stockpiled stimulus money from Washington without spending it all. Economists warn that giving people more money and saying they can use it on things like gas may only exacerbate the problem by increasing demand without alleviating supply constraints.

Giving them money is how we got into this trouble, said Peter Morici, an economics professor at the University of Maryland who contributes columns to The Washington Times. If you just give people money and that was money that would have been spent on something else, its not terribly harmful. If you do it in a way that subsidizes gasoline, you really are just adding to price pressures on gasoline.

Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, said temporary tax rebates are gimmicks and might not amount to much in the real world.

Short-term fluctuations in peoples incomes dont have significant impacts on their consumption, he said. If the tax cuts were permanent, the story would be quite different. Indeed, when peoples permanent disposable income increases, they boost their consumption.

But state and national Democrats eyeing a difficult election cycle say the government has a role to play in alleviating the sting of high prices.

In Connecticut, families can apply by July 31 for a one-time child tax rebate of $250 per child, with a $750 maximum per household. State officials estimate that 350,000 families are eligible.

State Republicans say Gov. Ned Lamont and fellow Democrats are trying to boost their political fortunes in an election year while Mr. Lamont and allies contend families need the cash to deal with inflation and high gas prices.

New Mexico authorized tax rebates and economic relief rebates earlier this year. It is sending out the second round of payments this month.

Under the program, households of married couples or single individuals with one or more dependents can receive economic relief payments of $1,000, and households of single individuals without dependents can receive $500.

The Democrat-run legislature also set aside $20 million to give economic relief payments to non-tax filers on a first-come, first-served basis.

Were delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in relief to New Mexico families, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said after the program was launched in mid-spring. As costs for gas, groceries and household expenses have risen across the country, we are taking immediate action to protect the paychecks of New Mexicans in every corner of our state.

In Washington, Mr. Biden is pushing a social-spending package that would extend super-sized Obamacare subsidies and let Medicare negotiate down the cost of certain prescription drugs. He says any savings on health services will alleviate the pressure on households pocketbooks.

He also proposed suspending the federal gas tax for 90 days to ease prices at the pump, though the GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress panned it as a gimmick.

View post:
Democrats from coast to coast dole out tax rebates to ease inflation, gas price woes - Washington Times

California Democratic candidates and officeholders have raised $141 million during the 2022 election cycle. Among California State Assembly candidates and officeholders, Phil Ting has raised more than any other Democrat.

Ting represents Assembly District 19 and is running for re-election in 2022. Ting raised $3,752,241 and spent $2,734,460 between Jan. 1, 2021, and May 21, 2022. According to California Secretary of State reports, the following individual donors and PACs gave the most money to Tings campaign accounts.

Of the $3.8 million in reported donations, $2.1 million came from these 10 donors.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active California candidate PACs submitted to the California Secretary of State. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

See updates to Tings campaign finance data after the next reports are available.

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.

View post:
Phil Ting raises more than any other Democrat in the California State Assembly Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI A Democratic candidate for Washtenaw County office is under fire for his past political contributions to Republican candidates, including a donation to former President Donald Trumps campaign.

Super PAC-funded mailers tucked into mailboxes of voters in his district paint Ann Arbor banker Stephen Lange Ranzini as a true Trump Republican, while his Democratic primary opponent has also seized upon them as a wedge issue.

Ranzini is competing with Crystal Lyte, a career adviser at Michigan Works Southeast, in the Aug. 2 Democratic primary election for Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners District 2, covering a piece of northern Ann Arbor and townships to the north and east.

Read more: 2 first-time primary candidates vie for northeastern Washtenaw County board seat

Since 2000, Ranzini has given almost $17,000 to state and federal GOP candidates and party causes, according to an analysis of public campaign finance records, which did not include local races.

During that same time, his Democratic cash contributions outpaced that sum, reaching at least close to $28,000 and dominating the records after 2010.

Theres one prominent exception, though: what appears to be a single $1,000 contribution to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. in late 2016 after Trumps presidential election victory, according to Federal Election Commission records, where the donation is reported under Stephen L. Razini, a misspelling of the candidates last name, but with an Ann Arbor address matching his other donation.

The FEC records, reported by the Trump campaign, show three transactions involving Razini, though memos included with the documents indicate two of them reflect a redesignation of the initial contribution for use in subsequent elections, rather than multiple, separate donations.

In a statement to MLive/The Ann Arbor News, Ranzini did not address the Republican contributions, but pointed to a his record as a lifelong supporter of Democratic candidates and Democratic parties.

His campaign website states that includes campaigning for figures like state Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, and U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, among others.

Ranzini also referenced his service as a delegate at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, where he said he cast a historic vote to support the nomination of Hillary Clinton, who he also supported in 2016 with a $2,700 contribution, FEC records show.

Ranzini, president and CEO of University Bank in Ann Arbor, also took aim at Lyte, his opponent, who issued a news release that drew a contrast between Ranzinis contributions to Republican causes and what it said were Lytes years of Democratic Party activism.

The statement violated a commitment the candidates made to avoid negative campaigning, Ranzini said in his statement, calling it a broken promise and a pitch in the dirt.

Im not playing a game. Im running to represent over 30,000 people in District 2, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Providing high quality services is party-blind, he said.

In an interview, Lyte said there was nothing that could justify donations to Republican candidates, which records show includes contributions from Ranzini more than 20 years ago to George W. Bushs presidential campaign and 2010 donations to Rick Snyders Michigan gubernatorial campaign, among others.

I just want individuals and citizens to know that this is who wants to represent them, but hes not true to the Democratic Party, she said. Im afraid that he is not transparent and that he is not fighting to get all of the seats blue.

The Washtenaw County board has been all-Democrat since a blue wave swept candidates into office in 2018, flipping GOP seats. District 2 has been filled since then by Sue Shink, now the boards chair who is running for state Senate.

In the face of criticism, Ranzini has underscored his dedication to the Democratic political cause in campaign materials.

In one video, he recounts pulling an all-nighter distributing campaign materials door-to-door for Irwin, alongside a photo of the banker shaking hands with now-President Joe Biden.

Still, Ranzini did not respond to questions from MLive/The Ann Arbor News about why he gave to the Trump campaign in the aftermath of the 2016 election, or address his prior contributions to Republicans.

Mailer from super PAC with union ties attempts to link Ranzini with Trump

A Lansing-based political action committee wielding tens of thousands of dollars and tied to a labor organization that has endorsed Lyte has taken notice of Ranzinis political past.

Some residents within the district covering Ann Arbor, Northfield, Salem, Webster, most of Superior and part of Dexter townships have received a mailer from the super PAC, called Make Michigan Great, featuring the county board candidate.

The mailer urges residents to support Ranzini as the pro-Trump MAGA choice, featuring a photo of the former president and claims about GOP priorities it says Ranzini will support if elected.

A mailer from a Michigan super PAC called "Make Michigan Great" uses U.S. Federal Election Commission records of political donations from Stephen Lange Ranzini, a 2022 Democratic candidate for Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners District 2, to Republican candidates and campaigns in order to paint the candidate as a "true Trump Republican." Ranzini says the Michigan District Laborers Council, an affiliation of local unions that has endorsed his opponent, Crystal Lyte, is behind the mailer using "dark money" from a Democratic political action committee.MLive/The Ann Arbor News

But the group behind the leaflet shares an address and a treasurer with the Michigan Laborers District Council, according to campaign finance records. The group is an affiliation of Laborers International Union of North America local unions representing construction, energy and public workers in Michigan.

Michigan LiUNA has endorsed Lyte, according to her campaign website.

The organization and Make Michigan Great PAC Treasurer Alex Zurek did not return voicemails and an email from the MLive/The Ann Arbor News on Friday, July 1, asking about the mailer.

In a text to a reporter, Ranzini said the mailer came on behalf of Lyte through dark money from a Democratic Superfund PAC.

The term dark money usually refers to political spending meant to influence voters where donors and the true origins of the funds arent disclosed a practice that has affected even Ann Arbor-area local elections and ballot question drives in recent years.

The super PAC behind the mailers most recently reported roughly $68,000 in contributions from the MI Laborers Vacation Fund, a 501(c)(9) nonprofit that lists its purpose as paying vacation benefits, according to tax forms, but provides no more specifics on campaign finance reports.

I have heard from quite a few angry voters who have said the mailer is garbage and theyre voting for me, Ranzini said.

Meanwhile, Lyte said she was surprised to learn of the mailer from residents who had received it and wasnt aware any group that had endorsed her planned to send it out.

Lyte said she is focused on raising money to distribute her own campaign literature describing who she is and her platform to voters.

My campaign cannot afford to send out mailers that are concerning (Ranzinis) doings, she said, I need to get the information out for people to know who I am.

Both candidates have less than a month to do so, with early voting already underway ahead of the Aug. 2 primary. The winner will face a Republican, Salem Township Trustee David Trent, in the November general election.

Read more Washtenaw County election coverage here.

More from The Ann Arbor News:

How to watch Washtenaw County candidate forums ahead of Aug. 2 primary

3 Democrats vie for Ypsilanti, Augusta township seat on Washtenaw County board

Washtenaw County board race pits incumbent against Ypsilanti City Council member

Heres whos running for Washtenaw County board, township and city offices in 2022

See more here:
Democrat running for Washtenaw County board faces questions over Trump, GOP donations - MLive.com

When the draft Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health leaked in early May, Democratic lawmakers in the Senate scrambled to figure out a response.

They settled on a vote on a bill that had already failed to pass in February, the Womens Health Protection Act a bill that would both codify access to abortion and invalidate existing state restrictions on the procedure. But in the wake of the draft opinion, the bill, which the House passed last fall, failed again in the Senate, 49-51. Supporters of the legislation brushed off the failure, stressing the point was to galvanize voters behind a vision that could be realized by electing more Democrats and overturning the filibuster.

Two months later, the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. But Democrats in Congress are still negotiating their next move to protect abortion rights.

Democratic senators, led by Patty Murray (WA) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), have been pushing for a bolder response from the executive branch. Aside from pressuring the administration, the closest thing congressional Democrats have to a strategy is asking voters to help them maintain their House majority and elect two more senators in November. If they do, Democrats could scrap the filibuster for abortion bills, surmounting both Republican opposition and resistance from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

Behind the scenes, a debate among Democratic leaders, strategists, and reproductive rights groups that began with the draft opinion leak is still playing out.

Should Democrats hold votes on various angles of the abortion debate that poll well with voters for example, a vote upholding abortion access nationally in cases of rape or incest, or threat to a mothers life? These measures likely wouldnt get 60 votes to pass, but they might get support from a few Republicans, would force others to take potentially unpopular positions ahead of the midterm elections, and could demonstrate majority support for some forms of abortion rights.

I think a rape, incest, health-of-the mother exception gets probably 52 to 53 votes in favor, and from a morale standpoint theres just a huge difference seeing something with 52 votes in favor rather than 49, said a senior Democratic aide, one of several aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But other prominent Democratic leaders argue that such votes would be theatrical wastes of time, and possibly even counterproductive: They could give moderate Republicans an opportunity to distance themselves from their extremist party, or undermine the case for broadly protecting abortion rights by deeming some abortions more worthy than others.

In interviews, aides and lawmakers suggested Democrats are also considering another path: introducing reproductive health bills through a process called unanimous consent. This parliamentary tactic could allow Democrats to bring up abortion issues often and blame Republicans when measures even moderate or popular ones fail. But only one senator is needed to block unanimous consent bills, so this wouldnt get every lawmaker on record or offer the televised drama of a full vote.

Still, two weeks after Roe fell, there remains no organized plan. The Supreme Court decision came down on the morning of Friday, June 24. Lawmakers left for recess that weekend and do not return until July 11.

Given that we had a leak draft of the opinion, I dont know why there wasnt an outline of all the things that wed be voting on if Roe were overturned, said a senior Democratic Senate aide. If you could have gotten consensus around having a vote around a rape, incest, or health exception bill, or a bill on medication abortion, or on IVF, or contraception access, that all could have been ready to go the day the Supreme Court ruled.

For the past year, Democrats have rallied around the Womens Health Protection Act, legislation that lawmakers say would codify Roe into law, but would also override many state restrictions to make abortion more accessible.

Since the Supreme Courts 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, states have been allowed to enact abortion restrictions as long as the restrictions do not present an undue burden on someone seeking to end a pregnancy. (What constitutes an undue burden is vague and heavily contested.) Nearly 500 restrictions have been passed by state and local governments since 2011, and the Womens Health Protection Act would override most of these laws by invalidating medically unnecessary state restrictions, such as requirements for ultrasounds, parental consent, mandatory waiting periods, and admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University, told the 19th News in February that while its difficult to say whether the Womens Health Protection Act is broader than Roe, it definitely disallows more restrictions than the current interpretation of Roe/Casey.

Reproductive health groups have been all-in on the bill, including urging the overturn of the Senate filibuster if necessary to get it passed. But in February, it failed 46-48, with almost all present Democrats voting in favor of opening debate on the bill, and no Republicans doing so. In the wake of the leaked draft overturning Roe, it hardly fared better, not reaching majority support.

The only Democrat in opposition was Manchin, who says he would support legislation to codify Roe but sees the Womens Health Protection Act as going beyond the narrower Roe and Casey standards.

Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK), two Republicans who likewise support legislation to codify Roe, have also objected to the fact that the Womens Health Protection Act would override states that have permitted religious exemptions for abortion providers. Following the overturn of Roe, Collins reiterated her position that abortion should be legal nationwide, though she supports allowing states to account for regional differences with regulations like parental notification requirements.

In February, Murkowski and Collins released their own bill, the Reproductive Choice Act, which would codify Roe and Casey, but also ensure that any existing religious conscience exceptions could stay in place. States could continue to enact abortion regulations so long as they dont have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

The bill picked up no co-sponsors, and was blasted as a harmful step backward by Democrats and reproductive health groups. Senators Collins and Murkowski are trying to muddy the waters by pushing a flimsy bill that claims to codify the right to abortion into law but actually weakens the protections we have under current law, NARAL Pro-Choice America said in a statement.

Democrats argue its a waste of time to expect any other Republicans to come on board with the Collins-Murkowski bill. The entire Republican Senate caucus except Collins and Murkowski, for example, recently voted for a measure that would strip federal funding for cancer screenings, STI testing, and birth control from health providers if they refer any patient for an abortion.

This isnt like the gun bill, a Democratic aide said, referring to the bipartisan gun bill President Joe Biden signed into law last month. There arent 10 votes there to find.

Still, Murkowski and Collins have been working with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) on a potential bipartisan bill, though they have not made anything public so far.

Even if their bill couldnt reach 60 votes, Kaine has said he thinks theres value in a compromise measure that could command bipartisan majority support in Congress, especially since courts are still grappling with the issue of abortion rights.

A spokesperson for Kaine told Vox that the senator is examining the [Supreme Court] opinion and talking to colleagues to determine how best ... to find bipartisan support to federally protect reproductive freedom.

For now, Democrats and reproductive rights groups are skeptical. If Collins and Murkowski are not willing to change the filibuster, then their efforts at drafting a compromise bill are nothing more than a political stunt that should not be taken seriously, NARAL president Mini Timmaraju told Vox.

Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota, said shed need to know whether the Kaine-Collins-Murkowski proposal would protect people from the kinds of restrictions previously passed in states like Texas, where private citizens can now file lawsuits against providers and anyone suspected to aid and abet an illegal abortion.

Would the bill protect people in those circumstances? she asked. And I dont know the answer to that, but I think that is the question that has to be asked and understood. Smith said she thinks the focus also needs to stay on how many votes there are.

A spokesperson for Warren declined to say whether shed vote for a Kaine-Collins-Murkowski bill ahead of November if the filibuster were overturned, and a Murray spokesperson said simply that the senator has spoken with Kaine about his work with Collins.

A thorny debate on the Democratic side of the aisle is whether to hold more votes that highlight where Republicans stand on reproductive rights, even if the bills have no shot of passage.

Republicans already voted in February and May against the Womens Health Protection Act, but that was an expansive bill. More people are paying attention now that Roe has been overturned, and there is an election coming up. Could more votes help keep attention on the issues, and drive home more clearly where individual lawmakers stand? What about bills barring criminal penalties for women who seek or obtain abortions? Or barring penalties for friends and acquaintances who might assist them? Or codifying exceptions for rape and incest?

Other Democrats have floated the idea of voting on other rights besides abortion that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, like same-sex marriage and the right to contraception.

For now, most Democratic lawmakers say they are waiting to see what their senior female colleagues want to do, and will take their lead from them. Others say they are waiting to get clearer signals from the reproductive rights advocacy groups, like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Emilys List.

A group of female senators, led by Patty Murray, the health committee chair, started convening in May to explore response options after the draft opinion leaked; on June 7, more than a month later, Murray and Warren led 23 other Democratic senators in sending a letter to the Biden administration, urging the president to lead a national plan to defend reproductive rights. The letter listed seven specific ideas for the administration to consider, including increasing access to abortion pills and exploring travel vouchers for those who might need to go to another state for the procedure.

Reproductive rights groups had first approached female senators with the idea to urge Biden to declare the overturn of Roe a public health emergency, a suggestion Warren and Smith took up in a New York Times op-ed the day after the Supreme Court decision.

A Warren spokesperson declined to say whether the senator thought there was merit to taking individual votes on aspects of reproductive rights ahead of the November midterm elections, but did say Warren supports putting everyone on the record with votes and every Republican senator voted against the Womens Health Protection Act.

A Murray aide said the senator plans to lead Senate Democrats in using the floor to continue making clear the stark difference between where Democrats stand and where Republicans stand on every womans right to control her own body, calling for unanimous consent on womens health bills and delivering floor speeches about the devastating impact of the Dobbs decision. The aide pointed out that Murray also has a health committee hearing planned for July 13 to highlight the effects of the Dobbs decision.

In interviews, aides and lawmakers involved in these discussions said that rather than hold more formal votes, elected officials are leaning toward a Senate procedure known as unanimous consent or UC.

Unanimous consent moves more quickly: Any senator can bring up a measure for unanimous consent, and any other can block it. A Democratic lawmaker might introduce a bill codifying the right to birth control, for example, seeking unanimous consent. If just one Republican objects, then the legislation cant move forward through this expedited process, and Democrats could theoretically then blame the whole party for the obstruction.

Democrats could still credibly say it was Republicans who blocked the bill from moving forward, said an aide familiar with the discussions.

Democrats have a lot of bills and are interested in making that contrast between the parties clear, so UC offers an opportunity to highlight that week after week, and not let that momentum fall away, explained another aide.

Recently introduced legislation includes bills to stop disinformation from crisis pregnancy centers, protect abortion care for military service members, and codify FDA regulations on abortion pills. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) reiterated the need post-Roe to strengthen online privacy laws, and a letter Speaker Nancy Pelosi circulated in the House floated ideas related to targeting personal data stored in period tracking apps, as well as legislation reiterating that Americans have a constitutional right to freely travel.

Still, some lawmakers and staffers say their caucus would be making a mistake in not holding more formal votes, especially on aspects that hold broad appeal among the American public. One downside with unanimous consent is that those tactics generally draw far less notice in the media, and they fail to put everyone on record.

Has a [television] network ever cut to the floor during a UC? said an aide who was critical of the strategy. If we had a motion to proceed vote on a rape-incest-health bill, I guarantee CNN and MSNBC would put it on TV. Thats literally never happening with a UC, that gets dismissed in two seconds.

These staffers point to disturbing examples mounting in the news of people denied abortion care in the wake of the Dobbs decision including a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio. Voting on a rape and incest exception bill could theoretically divide the Republican caucus and underscore how out of step Republicans are with the public.

Plus, one staffer said, framing this as a tactical retreat is not how it was viewed when Democrats voted on narrower pieces of the Affordable Care Act: We voted on different aspects, like preexisting conditions, the contraceptive piece, the donut hole, and no one ever thought that was harmful in talking about the most popular parts of the law and having those standalone votes.

But several Democratic aides dismissed the idea that further votes were needed, stressing that Republican opposition to reproductive health care was already clearly demonstrated with the two failed Womens Health Protection Act votes. Anything above that would be redundant, and could serve to highlight Democrats inability to get legislation passed.

I dont think anyone in America is confused on where things stand, and do people even pay attention to a bunch of show votes in Congress? an aide asked. I just dont think theres a huge, compelling case for it, though I dont think were strongly opposed either.

Smith, of Minnesota, offered something of a middle-ground position. Its clear where Republicans stand on reproductive freedom they are opposed to it. And theyve made that clear in their votes and in confirming justices committed to overturning Roe, so voters know, and I dont think we need additional votes, she told Vox.

Still, Smith acknowledged, theres value to taking votes.

I cant speak for all of my colleagues in the caucus about how they will want to proceed and what we might do, but let me just say that votes in the Senate can help us demonstrate how out of step the Republicans are with what Americans want, she said. I dont think those votes are needed for Americans to understand the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats. People, I think, understand that regardless, but I know we will continue to have conversations about what votes we want to have in order to put Republicans on the record again.

Read the original here:
How should Senate Democrats respond to the overturn of Roe? - Vox.com