“As U.S. Senator, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — the benefits Michiganders paid into over a lifetime of work — against cuts.”
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.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified both primary sources via the House Clerk. Roll Call 145 (May 22, 2025): Stevens (D-MI) voted Nay on H.R. 1 (One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which contained Medicaid reductions. Roll Call 190 (July 3, 2025): Stevens voted No on the motion to concur in Senate amendments to H.R. 1 (bill ultimately passed 218-212 with all Democrats opposed). The promise is 'As U.S. Senator' — she is currently a Representative and 2026 Senate candidate, so the Senate opportunity has not arrived. However, her House votes on the direction of the promise (opposing bills that cut Medicaid) constitute genuine attempts. She was not a lead sponsor/public champion of the opposition beyond her Nay votes, so ATTEMPTED (voted for the promise's direction, did not land) is correct — not CHAMPIONED. Same standard applied to any party: a member who voted against a party-line bill containing cuts but didn't lead the opposition = ATTEMPTED. Confidence 0.7 is fair given (a) partial context mismatch (promise is Senate-specific) and (b) evidence is votes on one composite bill, not a sustained protection record.
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.