We’ve spent a few weeks now piecing through various senators’ answer to the Roe and Reform question: will you vote for a Roe law and suspend the filibuster rules to allow it to get an up or down majority vote? We’ve seen or gotten answers for a number of senators — particularly ones whose positions seemed genuinely uncertain: Feinstein, Casey, et al. But now we’re at the point where we need to zero in on just who is where and specifically who is standing in the way of 48 senators all being on the record in support.

Part of me is reluctant to flag the coverage of publications I routinely criticize, particularly when their electoral politics coverage can be so egregious. But I do so here with Axios because it’s an example that even the insider sheets in DC are starting to take notice of the fact that Democrats holding the Senate or even possibly expanding their Senate majority is not some partisan pipe dream. It’s a very real possibility.

TPM Reader LM asked me why so many Republicans appear to be leaning into not only the abortion bans Dobbs made inevitable but also the horror story cases that are now coming to light. I thought other TPM readers might have the same question so I’m publishing LM’s question and my reply.

From TPM Reader LM …

This is getting worse and worse. My colleagues and I noted yesterday that Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita had threatened the doctor who treated the 10 year old rape victim from Ohio with investigation, loss of licensure and even imprisonment. This was another effort to shift the story after Republicans at first tried to claim the girl didn’t exist. Rokita suggested that the doctor, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, had failed to file mandated reports with the state about the abuse and the abortion. At least, Rokita claimed, he could find no evidence for any reports. Bernard is an “abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” Rokita told Fox News on Wednesday. “We’re gathering the information, we’re gathering the evidence as we speak and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at [Bernard’s] licensure, if she failed to report. In Indiana it’s a crime for … to intentionally not report.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton made a predictable move today. He filed a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s recent executive order asking the Department of Health and Human Services to take action to protect abortion access in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s overturning.

A new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast is live! This week, Josh and Kate discuss the dynamics of the new abortion politics.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

From TPM Reader DS …

Just read your latest piece. I still think you are correct on the Codify Roe promise. But every single day that goes by without explicit promises, in living rooms and cars, the energy wanes. The right to abortion (and the right to privacy in general), affects many, many people. The actuality of it, on a day to day or week to week basis, doesn’t. 

I mean, think about it. The whole anti-choice movement was built on the idea that hundreds of thousands of women were just running around getting abortions every other week. It is kind of a classic Overton-window situation, right? A million abortions a day! Roe is overturned, now, it’s only a few thousand a day!! We have saved lives, and those who really need it still have some access!!

Over the last couple months I’ve been beating the drum over the critical importance of putting Roe v. Wade at the center of the midterm election and doing so with a unified pledge to pass a Roe law in January 2023 if Democrats hold the House and add two Senate seats. There’s been some but still not nearly enough progress on getting Democrats to make this pledge or at least to say they’d support such a bill if it comes to a vote. So I wanted to check in to see if polls suggest any of this is having an impact.

Former White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin resigned from the White House after Trump lost the election. But when she informed then-chief of staff Mark Meadows of her impending departure, he told her to stick around.

I wanted to refer back to the email from TPM Reader SR which I published last night. SR referred to yesterday’s email from TPM Reader TL about government lawyers and the challenge they face taking stock of the fundamental changes in today’s judiciary. SR interpreted this as a matter of toughness or willingness to take extreme steps to advance policy outcomes. As he put it, these roadblocks stymie Democrats but they didn’t create an obstacle for Republicans or Trumpers because they just ignored the legal advice. “The difference is integrity. Dems have it. Reps don’t. You knew that already.”

This is not at all what we’re talking about. Certainly not what I’m talking about and I’m quite confident not what TL was talking about either. Toughness or willingness to break things is another metric that can be very important. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.