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

Codify Roe v. Wade into federal law to restore a nationwide legal right to abortion.

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: 85%

After the promise date (2024-07-10), Schatz took concrete legislative action toward codifying Roe but it has not become law. He cosponsored the Women's Health Protection Act of 2025 (S.2150, introduced June 24, 2025) — the bill designed to restore a nationwide legal right to abortion — and Democratic Roe-restoration measures continued to be blocked in the Senate. The July 10, 2024 vote on Democratic legislation to revive Roe's protections failed 49-44, short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster. With a Republican Senate majority in the 119th Congress and the filibuster threshold, the codification effort has been blocked through the normal legislative process; Roe has not been codified. This is a genuine attempt that failed for reasons within normal process (ATTEMPTED), not FULL (nothing enacted). It is not CHAMPIONED because Schatz is one of roughly 47 rank-and-file cosponsors, not the lead author/driver — the WHPA was led by Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, and Murray (verified in both the Baldwin press release and the congress.gov bill text, where Baldwin is the sponsor "for herself" and Schatz appears mid-list), and there is no evidence Schatz personally led or drove the effort.

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 →