Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
AttemptedReproductive Rights - IVF

Pass legislation (Right to Build Families Act) to protect Americans' nationwide right to access in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technology.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

AttemptedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 90%

Verified the cited PRIMARY source (Senate Roll Call Vote 242, 118th Cong., 2d Sess., Sept 17, 2024). It is a cloture motion to proceed to S. 4445, "A bill to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization" (the Right to IVF Act, successor to the Right to Build Families Act). The page confirms every element of the quote: Cloture Motion Rejected, YEAs 51 NAYs 44 (Not Voting 5), and Baldwin (D-WI) voted Yea. Because 60 votes were required, the bill was blocked and NOTHING was enacted — so this is not PARTIAL. Baldwin took genuine action (voted Yea to advance IVF-protection legislation) that failed within the normal legislative process via filibuster, which is the ATTEMPTED profile. It is correctly NOT CHAMPIONED: she was a cosponsor/supporter, not the lead sponsor/author (the Right to Build Families Act was led by Duckworth/Murray), and a Yea vote plus cosponsorship does not constitute leadership. The outcome does not overstate the evidence. Rating upheld as ATTEMPTED.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →