“As Senator, waive/carve out the filibuster in order to codify Roe v. Wade and protect abortion rights in federal law.”
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 verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources were fetched and verified. (1) The Baldwin/Blumenthal/Murray press release on Senate.gov (PRIMARY, dated 06.24.2025) is reachable and lists "Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)" by name among the full Democratic-caucus cosponsors of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2025; the cited quote appears verbatim. (S.2150 is not in the visible text, but the quote does not depend on the bill number.) (2) The Wikipedia WHPA article (REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) is reachable and confirms WHPA 2025 was introduced June 2025, aims to guarantee abortion access, and has NOT received a floor vote in the Republican-controlled 119th Congress (status "Referred to Committees of Jurisdiction"); the cited quote is a bracketed/ellipsis composite whose every substantive fact is confirmed by the source, not a fabricated verbatim claim. On the outcome: the promise has two parts — (a) waive/carve out the filibuster and (b) codify Roe/protect abortion in federal law. Gallego took a real, verifiable aligned action on (b) by cosponsoring WHPA 2025, but as caucus-wide cosponsorship (not authoring/leading — Baldwin/Blumenthal/Murray led), so CHAMPIONED is correctly excluded. On (a) there has been no opportunity: Democrats are in the Senate minority in the 119th Congress, WHPA has had no floor vote, and no filibuster carve-out vote has occurred; a minority senator cannot unilaterally waive the filibuster. PARTIAL neither overstates (it does not claim any filibuster action was attempted) nor understates (a concrete supporting action exists, so it is above NO_OPPORTUNITY). The rating is well-supported by the verified sources.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee 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 argumentsThese 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.