“Enact federal legislation protecting the right to abortion and reproductive freedom.”
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.
Independently verified all three cited primary sources by direct fetch of the House Clerk XML and congress.gov. Roll Call 295 (24-Sep-2021, H R 3755, Women's Health Protection Act, On Passage, Passed 218-211) records 'Larsen (WA)' (name-id L000560, D-WA) voting Yea. Roll Call 360 (15-Jul-2022, H R 8296, Women's Health Protection Act, On Passage, Passed) likewise records Larsen Yea. The congress.gov cosponsors page for H.R.3755 lists 'Rep. Larsen, Rick [D-WA-2]*' flagged as an Original cosponsor. Wikipedia corroborates the overall legislative history: prime sponsor Rep. Judy Chu, House passage 218-211 (2021) and 219-210 (2022), both bills dying in the Senate on failed cloture votes, so no federal law was enacted. Larsen genuinely and repeatedly advanced the promised legislation (original cosponsor plus supporting votes across two Congresses), but he was one of ~215 cosponsors of a caucus-wide bill led by Chu, not a leader/driver of the effort, and the legislation never landed. ATTEMPTED (+0.25) is the correct label under a party-neutral standard: a member of either party who cosponsored and voted for a flagship bill that passed the House but died in the Senate would receive the same rating. CHAMPIONED overstates his role; PARTIAL/FULL are wrong because nothing was enacted. Confidence raised from 0.72 to 0.80 after direct primary-source confirmation.
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.