Well, here was an interesting article, in Politico on January 13:
Leading abortion-rights advocacy groups have quietly raised concerns with Senate Democrats over plans to reform – and potentially weaken – the ability of a minority of Senators to block action on legislation, for fear that the move could open the way to anti-abortion legislation.
Senators Tom Harkin – who has been seeking to limit filibusters since 1995 – Tom Udall, and Jeff Merkley are leading a push to limit the requirement for 60-vote supermajorities on motions to proceed and to require “talking” filibusters, rather than theoretical ones, among other “reform” measures. The plans reflect frustration at Senate dysfunction, but they could also strengthen the hand of the current Democratic majority and of a future Republican majority….
But a staffer for a major abortion rights groups said they’re raising concerns to Senate offices on the question, and specifically on what impact the requirement that Senators actually stand there and talk would have on the current informal standoff on abortion-related issues.
“Our main concern is that traditionally, out of the filibuster, an automatic 60-vote threshold has emerged on abortion issues,” said the staffer, noting that as a matter of informal Senate rules, no abortion-related bill or amendment proceeds without that supermajority support.
“After the November 2 elections, and looking at the trajectory on this issue, it’s really important that the automatic 60-vote threshold on abortion amendments is preserved,” the staffer said, anticipating “a litany of amendments undermining women’s access that are coming out of the House.”
“We’re going to need the Senate to be able to beat back attacks,” the staffer said.
Apparently, pro-aborts have seen the future, and it doesn’t look good. They aren’t willing to gamble short-term gain for long-term loss.
[HT: LifeNews.com; photo, via CQ Roll Call, is of Democrat Strom Thermond in the midst of leading the longest filibuster in history - 24 hours, 18 minutes - in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957]