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

Committed to passing the Women's Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade protections and guarantee abortion access nationwide as a matter of federal law; he is a cosponsor of and voted for the bill.

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: 83%

The ATTEMPTED rating is correct and supported by the cited sources, though the rationale contains a factual mislabeling of one source. Van Hollen was a cosponsor of the Women's Health Protection Act and voted Yea on the cloture motion to proceed, performing the concrete act promised, but the bill failed to advance (cloture rejected; 60 votes needed), so the goal of codifying Roe nationwide was not achieved. That failure was due to the filibuster/vote count (Manchin joining all Republicans), which a single senator cannot overcome — hence ATTEMPTED rather than FULL or NO_OPPORTUNITY. IMPORTANT DISCREPANCY: the cited Senate roll call (vote_117_2_00065) is actually the February 28, 2022 cloture vote on H.R. 3755, which was rejected 46-48 — NOT the May 11, 2022 vote on S.4132 (rejected 49-51) that the rationale narrates and that the CBS source describes. The correct roll call for the 49-51 May 11 vote is #173 (vote_117_2_00173). The two sources thus document two different WHPA votes. Nonetheless, Van Hollen voted Yea and the WHPA failed in both, and both cited quotes appear verbatim on their respective pages, so the ATTEMPTED outcome holds; confidence is reduced to reflect the roll-call/tally mislabeling in the rationale.

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 →