Did Democrats have a filibuster proof majority since 1970? IIRC that has not been the case since at least 2000 (perhaps going back even further). Passing such a law would require a filibuster proof majority. I agree to the sentiment of uselessness, but some fairness should be payed. Congress is kinda dysfunctional with any serious legislation requiring a super majority in congress and the presidency.
Ah, I forgot the 2009 period - thank you for looking that up!
I personally feel the Democrats were not moving to pass that legislation in 2009 because it "felt" that Roe was solid after having been challenged so many times. Therefore the legislation would have been unnecessary and (arguably) bad politics.
I don't mean to shift goal posts. This is where I agree with the sentiment expressed and (as pointed out) there was opportunity. It is quite damning, the democratic party has the problem of not playing hardball.
