Texas Democrat Colin Allred, who is running against Senator Ted Cruz in November, said he would support “rigging” the filibuster tactic, in part so that a hypothetical Democratic-majority Senate could pass an abortion bill that he claims would codify the Supreme Court’s 1971 abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Tim Miller, a former Republican and podcast host of The Bulwark, interviewed Allred, a former NFL linebacker and House member, on Saturday at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin. Miller asked a simple question, suggesting that Allred (and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, too) are not as liberal as his critics claim. However, Allred used the opportunity to promise to “fix” the filibuster.

“If Kamala Harris does it and the Democrats keep the Senate, if Colin Allred does it and there are 50 Democratic senators, they will abolish the filibuster, pass the Green New Deal, nationalize health care, and expand the Supreme Court to 19 people… is that realistic?” Miller asked, implying that anyone predicting these radical steps by Allred would be wrong.

But Allred did not go along with the idea and promised to change the filibuster rule, a Senate rule that currently requires a majority of 60 votes to pass certain legislation.

“The filibuster tactic needs to change because it no longer works,” the Democrat replied. “As many observers in the Senate know, the filibuster tactic has historically been used almost exclusively to block civil rights legislation and anti-lynching legislation. I am a trained civil rights lawyer. This is a personal matter for me.”

(While opponents of civil rights legislation have indeed resorted to the filibuster tactic, many others have also used it to defeat countless other bills. It is nothing more than a legislative mechanism that can be used for good or bad.)

Allred pointed out that the previous version of the filibuster had held up the Senate’s work, while the new version of the filibuster “applies to every single piece of legislation and there is a two-track process” in which the Senate can pass other legislation while Senators use the filibuster to block certain pieces of legislation.

“It has contributed to bipartisanship and actually impaired the functioning of the Senate,” he argued.

Supporters of the current filibuster tactic, such as outgoing Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona) and Joe Manchin (IW.Va.), argue that the 60-vote threshold prevents the passage of radical bills and contributes to a friendlier climate in the upper echelons of the legislature.

“The purpose of the filibuster, like the purpose of the Senate itself, is to create a place where we can have thoughtful, deliberative debate and forge compromise and consensus among our diverse and currently divided population,” Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) said in 2021.

Allred pointed out that in the House of Representatives, where he currently sits, the majority rules. “If you’re not in the majority, you have nothing,” he said. “It doesn’t work that way in the Senate, and I don’t want it to be like the House, but the current filibuster tactic isn’t working.”

The Texas Democrat stressed, “I want to preserve the bipartisan nature of the Senate,” but called for a change in the filibuster tactic that would allow Democrats to “codify Roe v. Wade.”

“And that’s why I think we need to reform it. We need to fix it. We need to go back to the original language,” he said. “That’s also why we’re going to codify Roe v. Wade and make it the law of the land.”

However, the Democrat did not explain how “correcting” the filibuster would help Democrats pass legislation to “codify Roe v. Wade.”

In September 2021, Allred voted with most of his Democratic colleagues to pass HR 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act. He is a co-sponsor of the bill and claims it would “codify Roe v. Wade into federal law.”

But the bill goes even further than Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 14th Amendment to include a right to abortion. The court ruled that states cannot ban abortion before the point of “fetal viability,” the point at which an infant can survive outside the womb. The court overturned that decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), returning the abortion question to the states.

While some states restrict abortions to the early stages of pregnancy, before babies feel pain, in others they can be performed up until the moment of birth.

The Women’s Health Protection Act specifically states that the right to abortion “shall not be restricted or otherwise impaired.” It would have allowed abortion providers to determine whether or not a pregnancy is considered “viable” and would have allowed abortions to be performed at virtually any time.

“Make no mistake. It is not a codification of Roe v. Wade,” Manchin, who broke away from his party and voted against the bill, said in 2022. “It strikes 500 state laws off the books. It expands abortion.”

Allred further pointed out that the abortion ban includes the prohibition of removing a nonviable fetus in an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo attaches outside the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube). He pointed out that two Texas women sued hospitals, claiming the hospitals refused to treat their ectopic pregnancies out of fear of the Texas abortion law. However, he did not mention that the Texas law not prohibit the treatment of ectopic pregnancy and these procedures are not abortions.

Allred did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by press time.