By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Susan Collins recently drew criticism for misstating the Supreme Court’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as 6-3, when the actual decision was 5-4. She also claimed Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not have been a pivotal vote, despite his role in the majority that ended the federal right to abortion. This assertion was directly challenged by her Democratic opponent, Graham Platner, who accused Collins of lying and stated that Kavanaugh was indeed the deciding vote. Collins has maintained she does not regret confirming Kavanaugh, even as millions of women now face restricted access to reproductive healthcare.
Read the original article here
The political landscape is currently buzzing with accusations of dishonesty directed at Republican Senator Susan Collins, particularly concerning her defense of her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Recent commentary suggests that Collins is “lying through her teeth” and has made a demonstrably false statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, claiming it was a 6-3 vote when the actual decision to overturn was 5-4. This discrepancy, though seemingly small, is being highlighted as a key point of contention and a reflection of what critics perceive as a pattern of deceptive behavior.
The assertion that Senator Collins is being untruthful stems from her recent attempts to defend her past actions, specifically her vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, which ultimately paved the way for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Critics point to the fact that the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade was indeed a 5-4 decision, making the inclusion of Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote – who reportedly voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, though he did vote to uphold a Mississippi abortion ban – relevant to the narrative. However, the central argument from those criticizing Collins is that her vote to confirm Kavanaugh was instrumental in creating the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that ultimately overturned decades of established precedent.
The accusation of lying is further amplified by the perception that Senator Collins has a history of presenting herself as a moderate, even a “pro-choice” Republican, while her voting record and actions often align with the more conservative wing of her party. This perceived hypocrisy, critics argue, is what allows her to win elections in Maine, a state that may lean more moderate than many others. Her voting record on Supreme Court nominees is seen as a prime example of this, where she votes for justices who then proceed to overturn precedents she claims to support. The narrative is that she votes against her party only when her “no” vote is inconsequential to the outcome.
A significant point of contention is Collins’ role in the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh. It is stated that the confirmation vote itself was 50-48, meaning that without her vote, Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed. Furthermore, there’s an assertion that she was also the deciding vote to advance Kavanaugh from committee to the Senate floor. If she had voted no in committee, he would not have received a floor vote at all. This dual role, critics contend, solidifies her responsibility for Kavanaugh’s place on the Supreme Court and, by extension, the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The claim that the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was a 6-3 vote is particularly troubling to those holding Collins accountable. While the broader ruling in Dobbs might have involved a 6-3 split on specific aspects, the crucial vote to overturn Roe v. Wade was a 5-4 decision. The fact that Collins allegedly misstated this critical number is seen as a clear attempt to obfuscate the reality of the situation and downplay her own role in a landmark decision that has profoundly impacted reproductive rights in the United States. This misrepresentation is viewed as a calculated effort to mislead voters.
The financial backing of Senator Collins is also brought into the discussion, with mentions of Leonard Leo, a key figure in the Federalist Society and a major donor who, it is suggested, made overturning Roe v. Wade his “passion project.” The implication is that Collins’ actions are not independent but are influenced by powerful conservative organizations and donors who have a vested interest in appointing judges who will dismantle established rights. This connection further fuels the narrative that Collins is not acting in the best interest of her constituents but is instead serving a larger, conservative agenda.
The broader context of political discourse is also relevant here. There’s a palpable frustration with what is perceived as a trend of politicians making easily verifiable false statements. The ease with which the vote count of a Supreme Court decision can be checked makes Collins’ alleged misstatement all the more egregious. It suggests a level of disregard for facts and a reliance on the perceived apathy or lack of critical engagement from the electorate to get away with such claims. This “lying through her false teeth,” as one commenter put it, is seen as a symptom of a deeply problematic political environment.
Looking ahead, the focus shifts to the potential electoral consequences for Senator Collins. Her position on issues like abortion and her past votes on Supreme Court justices are considered to be a significant vulnerability in Maine. The upcoming elections, particularly if a candidate like Platner emerges as a viable challenger, could see these issues take center stage. The hope among critics is that voters will hold Collins accountable for her role in the current state of reproductive rights and that her defense, including what is being called her “gaslighting,” will backfire. The hope is that voters will remember her instrumental role in the events that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and choose a different path in future elections.