Over the last couple weeks I’d shared reports from TPM Readers struggling to get a response from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire on whether she supports making Roe law and changing the filibuster rules to allow that bill to get a straight up or down vote. This morning I chatted with Shaheen’s Communications Director Sarah Weinstein who confirmed to me that Shaheen not only supports making Roe federal law (which she and 48 other Democrats attempted to do a few weeks ago) but also “supports amending the filibuster rules so a bill to codify Roe could pass by simple majority.”

From TPM Reader JR …

Hi, Illinois reader here.

I just called the DC offices of Senators Durbin and Duckworth. Both liberal stalwarts, obviously, but neither staffer showed particular awareness of the question of whether the filibuster will need to be suspended to enact abortion protections.

Neither seemed clear on any kind of promise that the Senate would do something concrete if people vote in the Fall.

TPM Reader NL chimes in from Virginia …

I just called the DC offices of my Senators — Warner and Kaine. I asked the staffers whether the Senators supported suspending the filibuster to codify abortion rights.

Warner’s office said that the Senator supports legislation to codify abortion rights but that he does not have a position on the suspending the filibuster for it. Kaine’s office was similar, except that Kaine’s position is that he supports a rule change to reinstate the talking filibuster.

Earlier today we heard from TPM Reader JR in Illinois who was sad and dejected after hearing mealymouthed answers from the offices of Senators Durbin and Duckworth about whether they were prepared both to pass a Roe bill and change the filibuster rules to give it an up or down vote. Now we just heard from TPM Reader FH who got a fundraising email from “Dick Durbin” (I use the scare quotes whenever referring to a pol’s online fundraising alter ego) in which he asks FH if he can “count on your support before our midnight deadline” for his fight for reproductive rights.

Then he announces the hearing (emphasis added): “Simply put, I’m doing everything I can to fight back. I’m leading the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing about this SCOTUS decision next month and I’m still fighting tooth and nail to protect reproductive rights at the federal level.”

I continue to believe — in fact it’s all but a certainty — that continued Democratic control of Congress and any near-term restoration of abortion rights across the country rests almost entirely on Democrats making a firm commitment to pass such a law in January 2023. It’s creeping forward. A handful of Senate Democrats who hadn’t committed before have now done so. President Biden has said he supports doing so — not relevant in any direct sense but a very important signal. But it needs to move quickly.

As I’ve pressed the case for centering the 2022 election around the House and Two More Senators (“Roe and Reform”), one of the most consistent rejoinders I get is, “What’s the point? The Court will just throw out the law.” Or, “There is no point unless you reform the Court at the same time.” These are reasonable questions. But they’re wrong both as politics and law.

Here’s the short version: The near-term threat of the Court rejecting such a Roe law is real but overstated. But “Roe and Reform” is the best strategy regardless of what the Court decides to do. The details — the long version — are important, though. So let’s go through them.

From TPM Reader ES …

I don’t think it is only “left-wing wreckers trying to break things” who are feeling growing frustration with the Democratic party. There is opportunity cost when the Democratic party leads the opposition – they take space, they demobilize other efforts by the implicit or explicit “trust us” logic of vote us in again, etc. And their response to the clear and systematic dismantling of norms and laws since Gore’s acquiescence, through failure to hold anyone accountable for the Great Crash of 08-09, to the denial of Garland’s nomination, up through the expanding Koch-envisioned and Tea Party / Trumpian grassroots fueled widening institutional erosion and now full, brazen takeover of the Supreme Court…has been astoundingly… small, tepid, narrow. 

From TPM Reader LE …

I’ve been thinking about this too, the ongoing, tiresome noise from those frustrated that Democratic leadership and politicos don’t have a magic bullet to fix everything. Take Roe, for example. Some on the left are upset, claiming Democrats and the party have done nothing over the years to protect reproductive freedom and other rights and liberties by, for example, ginning up interest in voting Democratic and for candidates who will protect those rights. But is their claim true? Seems to me the alarm has been sounded for years, just not with the volume and persistence that Republicans deploy to keep their base riled up and ready to fall in line.

From the moment Justice Alito’s draft decision leaked in early May (and really much earlier) it’s been clear that the only path to restoring Roe‘s protections was to elect two more senators to pass a Roe bill and change the filibuster rules to allow an up or down vote. The current leadership on the Hill simply doesn’t grasp the necessity of firm pledges from all 48 Democratic senators besides Manchin and Sinema. 48 pledges are there. But as we’ve discussed a few will require some real pressure. That’s why getting all the other pledges banked is so key. Then you can narrow the pressure down on any hold outs.

From the outset I’ve figured that high on the list of potential foot-draggers are Sens. Feinstein, Casey and King.

Today I want to talk about Sen. Feinstein, because we’ve got some new information on that front.

One sentence in a post from earlier this afternoon really set off a firestorm in your emails. I’m going to print a selection of them later. For now, let me explain or clarify. As is so often the case, I think this is at least in part that so-common thing in political arguments: two sides tossing the same slogan back and forth and basically talking past each other because they are interpreting it as meaning different things. This is about “just vote” as some kind of generalized slogan and those who say that they’ve voted enough, voting hasn’t worked, it’s not a good enough answer, etc.

From your emails it’s clear that many of you interpret this phrase as “all you need to do is vote,” or “don’t ask questions, just vote,” or “don’t do anything else but vote.” I don’t know why anyone interprets this that way. But then again, it’s not something I tell anyone in the first place. I’m hardly someone who says, “just take the party leadership’s word for it” or “go with whatever strategy or lack of strategy they propose” since I’ve dedicated my writing at TPM for the last couple months to arguing that the White House and congressional leadership are making a category error in how they are approaching Roe and the midterm election and that it will require ordinary voters and activists to force their hand to follow a better strategy.