Here Is Where Every Democratic Senator Stands On the Future of Abortion Rights

Last week, Politico published a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and end 50 years of constitutional protections for the right to choose. The decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would leave it up to state legislatures to regulate and criminalize abortion as they see fit. Given that Republicans control a disproportionate number of state legislatures, the practical effect of this result would be to deny essential healthcare to millions of people.

Unless Congress takes action. The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect the right to access abortion across the country, codifying the right to choose that the Court announced in Roe. Last September, the Act passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives by a 218-211 vote.

In a 50-50 Senate that Democrats control only by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote, however, the legislation has ground to a halt. Neither West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin nor Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey signed on to the Senate version of the bill, which has 48 co-sponsors. In a February vote to move the bill forward, Democrats were only able to wrangle 46 votes. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, and New Mexico Senator Ben Ray Lujan were not present. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin voted no. 

The Dobbs leak, however, underscored the urgency of the moment. Days later, Casey announced that he’d vote for the WHPA, noting that “circumstances around the entire debate on abortion” had changed in the interim. On May 11, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer again held a vote to advance the WHPA; again, it failed, 51-49. All 50 Republicans opposed it; Manchin was the lone Democrat to join them.

Even if Democrats were united on substance, there remain procedural hurdles to codifying Roe: The Senate filibuster, which requires that a supermajority of 60 senators agree to end debate on a bill, would prevent the WHPA from going forward. By simple majority vote, Democrats could modify the filibuster to force a vote on the WHPA. To date, though, they have been unwilling to do so, for the WHPA or for any other major progressive legislation.

With the midterm elections looming, unless Democrats take action now to protect the right to choose, that right could disappear very soon. Unless you think Democrats are going to win a 60-senator, pro-choice, filibuster-proof majority anytime soon, a 50-something-senator pro-choice Democratic majority that is willing to amend the filibuster is the only way forward for abortion rights.

The WHPA’s passage would not necessarily end the conservative assault on abortion rights; if the WHPA were to become law, this Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority is likely to find a reason to strike it down. But a presumed legal challenge does not mean Democrats should abandon one of the party’s ostensibly bedrock values altogether. Besides, the benefits of a theoretical filibuster-free Senate would extend beyond any particular piece of legislation: Without this archaic 60-vote requirement in place, Democrats would have the ability to take on meaningful Supreme Court reform proposals, too, if only they can summon the courage to do so. 

In the wake of the Dobbs leak, we reviewed the public statements of all 50 Democratic senators and contacted their offices to see where each one stands on changing or ending the filibuster to enact the WHPA—and how the Dobbs leak might have changed their decisionmaking calculus. Here’s what we found out. 

Unless otherwise noted, this information comes from the offices of Democratic senators. We’ll update as necessary.