This article agrees with you that the new bill codifies Roe, and agrees that Manchin said he would vote for a bill that codified Roe, so I guess only Joe Manchin could comment on how he sees the new bill as 'expanding abortion rights.'N.E. Brigand wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:00 pm Whoa! Where did those goalposts go?
The claim was that Joe Manchin would have voted for a bill that (a) permitted abortions with limitations like those imposed in France or (b) codified Roe.
The bill whose text that I provided, which Joe Manchin voted against, codifies Roe.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reido ... -rcna28522Speaking to the news media ahead of his “no” vote, Manchin claimed he'd support a bill that would “codify Roe v. Wade,” the federal abortion rights ruling, which is precisely what the Women’s Health Protection Act would do. But Manchin won't back that bill because, he claimed, it would “expand” abortion rights.
edit: I would note that I saw an article or report yesterday about Sens. Murkowski and Collins vowing to work on a bill that codified Roe, which could be seen to imply that they also perceive some advancement of abortion rights in the bill that was voted down (just speculating here). I mean, why write a new bill if there is already one available to proffer that does what they want?