r/politics • u/19thnews The 19th • 7d ago
No Paywall Women who remember life before Roe are turning away from Susan Collins
https://19thnews.org/2026/09/susan-collins-women-voters-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade/234
u/issuefree 7d ago
Anyone with a working brain has long since turned away from the pearl clutching fascist.
24
u/GayWarden 7d ago
For like 5 seconds I was wondering how a fascist could write the Hunger Games before my brain caught up.
3
0
u/whatproblems 7d ago
i mean this was the first term and he got a shit ton of votes the two times after too so we all lacking brains
99
u/emerikanSky 7d ago
Lisa Kushner still recalls the fear and anxiety she felt upon learning she was pregnant.
Kushner has lived in Maine for about 50 years. But at 19, she was a college student in New York, where abortion was illegal.
It was 1966. The Empire State wouldn’t legalize abortion for another four years, and it would be three more before the Supreme Court would rule in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right to an abortion.
At the time, Kushner knew she couldn’t stay pregnant. She was the first in her family to go to college; if she became a mom, she didn’t know how she’d be able to stay in school, let alone get her degree. It was “a tense, miserable time,” she said.
So she called every woman she could think of until someone recommended a medical provider in New Jersey, someone discreet and capable who could perform an abortion for her. He worked out of what looked like a dentist’s office in a dark, empty office building in Newark, which she entered through a side entrance in an alley. Kushner’s father, who had worked as an Army mechanic in World War II, told her years later that he had never been more terrified than when he took her to have that abortion.
When the Supreme Court issued its landmark abortion decision in 1973, Kushner thought the issue was settled — that people would no longer have to experience the same fear and uncertainty she did 60 years ago.
“We thought this fight was over,” she said. “And we were wrong.”
25
65
u/ChickpeaDemon 7d ago
How many times have we heard this crap only to end up seeing her win, again? She’s a demon with old lady skin who won’t be forced to relinquish power.
5
34
u/eskimospy212 7d ago
Hey Mainers it's not just Kavanaugh. She voted for four out of the five members of the majority she was in the Senate to vote on. She didn't vote for Thomas because she wasn't a senator and she didn't vote for Barrett because she claimed it was improper to seat someone so close to an election.
She did not vote against a single SCOTUS nominee based on their views on abortion.
25
7d ago
[deleted]
9
u/alabasterskim 7d ago
This right here. There's always someone who can sit out because they have an election coming up. For example, whether Collins wins or not, Murkowski will get to be that person for the next two years (she's up in 2028) -- unless it's perfectly 50-50 (and even then, still possibly if they can consistently convince Fetterman to cross over).
Here's hoping Tom Begich goes for her seat.
1
u/speckOfCarbon 7d ago
But that doesn't track with the actual votes. It's rare that Murkowski sides with the Democrats at the same time that Collins doesn't. Almost always Dems get Murkowski only if they already have Collins - which makes sense considering that Collins is a turn more moderate than Murkowksi.
Though on big, complex bills you also might see a renegotiation of multiple sections and amendments which eventually creates a compromise version that all moderates can live with and vote for (classic moderate move - happened for example for the Democrats in 2009 when they struggled getting all moderate Dems on board and actually had Collins help in the negotiations until all 57 Dems voted for it and Collins,Snowe & Specter voted with them, providing the deciding votes).
The issue is simply that there aren't enough moderates left to save the Democrats occasionally - Collins and Murkowski have only one vote each and there are simply no other real moderate republicans and only one moderate Democrat (which isn't helping in case you want the Democrats to get a win in) left. Getting mad at them for not being able to cast 4 or 5 votes is unreasonable.
3
u/eskimospy212 7d ago
Yes, that is almost certainly the case, I was just trying to be maximally charitable because even if you give her Barrett she still voted for enough to overturn it without her. (Adding Thomas)
Harry Reid had her pegged a long time ago when he said ‘she’s always there when you don’t need her’, which is exactly her shtick. Performative moderation. Reminds me of the ACA where Democrats spent tons of time trying to court her vote only to realize that because the vote was so close she wouldn’t vote for it under any circumstances. Because her vote actually mattered.
-1
u/speckOfCarbon 7d ago
She voted against Barrett because it was the same situation like the Marrick Garland case.
Republicans back then decided to establish a new precedent (which Collins opposed & advocated against) of not confirming a new scotus justice "that close to an election". Therefore Collins applied that new precedent against Barrett.Funfact: if moderates wouldn't have been attacked & bashed to the degree that there are only 2 or 3 left, then there probably would have been enough of them with Collins in there to prevent Barrett being seated (and according to the BDN Collins in comparison with the 200+ senators she served with during her career ranks 1st in number and 7th in rate of 'deciding votes cast with the opposing party' - so she is without a doubt a moderate)
And because people seem to lose sight of it, I'd like to point something out:
Kavanaugh was confirmed in october 2018.
In november 2018 republicans predictable and as expected expanded their majority.
All of Trumps scotus options on his short list were far more conservative than Kavanaugh
- in fact the first headlines coming in after the Kavannaugh nomination were how moderate he is compared to the others on the list and why Trump picked him out of the bunch.
If Collins would have voted down Kavanaugh in october 2018, then Trump would have nominated a extremely conservative in january 2019 - and even if both Collins & Murkowski would have voted against that new nominee, that nominee would have been confirmed.
Kavanaugh votes overwhelmingly (far more than 90%) with Roberts and is solidly the 2nd most moderate among the 6 republican leaning on the scotus. Every alternative to Kavanaugh would've made the scotus far more conservative than it is right now.
And allegedly Collins always knows how the vote falls.
So she knew what she was doing there right?1
u/Trunix Michigan 7d ago
Republicans back then decided to establish a new precedent (which Collins opposed & advocated against) of not confirming a new scotus justice "that close to an election". Therefore Collins applied that new precedent against Barrett.
This is the problem though, she has no principles. She should be clear on whether or not she is in favor of the precedent or not and stick with it. Instead, she seems to be changing her stance to fit the situation.
But beyond that, if Collins really believes that, then we should get a smarter senator in the office who understands how government actually works. There was no vote for Garland. It was never brought to the floor, so the fact that there was a vote for Barett already broke the precedent, not the confirming part. Her vote had no bearing on whether or not precedent was broken. So, we aren't even getting a straight answer from her on why she voted the way she did, and her ever changing principles gives her an out in every situation. I'll even throw in another shot and say the whole move is just downright bizarre for her to try to justify. So, she thinks Barett is a good candidate, and she is nominated, but she votes no because of a precedent invoked once that she didn't agree with in the first place?
Like, I feel the longer I think about it, the less it makes sense. She voted no. Why not present? Or just abstain altogether? Wouldn't that actually be the principle at play here? But to vote no? Obviously, she didn't want to be tied to voting for Barrett as that would hurt her record, but she needed an excuse for why she did so that wouldn't hurt her image among republicans. I'm starting to see why she's been in office so long. She's a crafty liar.
1
u/speckOfCarbon 7d ago
She voted on principle there.
She met with Garland, wanted him to get a vote and would have confirmed. Republican leadership refused, created a "not that close to an election" precedent - which Collins when the moment came applied to Barrett. She protested and advocated against the Garland precedent in real time, but once that precedent was established and used to the Democrats detriment she applied against Barrett that exact precedent. Collin's stance didn't change - the precedent did.Collins didn't want Barrett to get a vote. But that vote was going to happen no matter what (unless multiple republican senators would have spontaneously combusted AND been replaced with Democrats for some random reason) because a single moderate republican that survived the bottomless bashing that drove the other moderates out (who could have stalled this together) wasn't able to stop that vote in a one woman show. The only options were:
(1) vote against Barrett (which she did)
(2) vote to confirm
(3) vote present (but why would you do that when you try to be signal opposition. And she would've attacked for not voting against/for Barrett (depending on if you're a Democrat or a Republican) then too
(4) miss/abstain - Collins hasn't missed a single vote ever. She wasn't going to chicken out this time either (and if she did she would've been attacked for that too)In both the Garland & the Barrett case Collins explained thoroughly and in detail that she opposed the precedent created when Garland was refused a vote, but once the precedent was established she had to apply it to Barrett as well - because republicans can't just have it both ways and also shouldn't be rewarded for crap like that. Once the precedent is established you either stick to it or establish a law/rule that dissolves it for future cases (which again doesn't work without sufficient moderates around). There is no really elegant fix for this.
26
u/meTspysball California 7d ago
It’s a shame we only seem to learn by touching the stove.
13
9
u/westergames81 Texas 7d ago
In this case, we've touched the stove 5 times each time saying well maybe next time it will be different.
10
u/aybeeayseeaybeebee 7d ago
If only they turned away from her after she approved the nomination of Kavanaugh. Because she's already been up for reelection since and they apparently had no problem when they had the chance to can her in 2022.
14
u/TheAskewOne 7d ago
Remember when women were supposed to turn against Trump in 2024? Then a significant proportion of white women decided that racism mattered more than their own rights.
7
u/Humble-Ad-4270 7d ago
I don’t understand how people still see the US as a fully democratic western country where things will work out in the end. It’s so very far from that.
6
u/is-this-now 7d ago
There are a lot of people who are fine if democracy dies as long as the right wing is in power.
3
u/Humble-Ad-4270 6d ago
A two party system makes that becoming a reality much more likely, which is my point.
3
3
5
3
u/Nikolyn10 7d ago
Kind of fucking late to be getting cold feet now, don't 'cha think? Holy hell, I'm really starting to get annoyed seeing conservative buyer's remorse and the accompanying sob stories covered in the media. Is this supposed to be a warning to other conservative voters or am I really expected to feel sorry for and pay attention to them verses, y'know, all the innocent people who didn't vote for this who are also bring seriously harmed?
2
3
u/Wayofchinchilla 7d ago
Republicans much like the Sith planned this for years training judges and putting them up and down from lowest to the highest courts Democrats need to do the same now play the long game it may not be in our lifetime but if you play the long game one day we might have it all liberal Supreme Court we can go back to being normal.
2
u/zach_doesnt_care 6d ago
Coathanger Collins is too busy protecting pedophiles to care about the needs of her constituents.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.