And guess what happened? The health care bill never passed, and Collins has since engaged in some big-time revisionism by arguing that McConnell really did keep his promise but that partisan bickering was somehow to blame. “How colossally wrong she turned out to be,” as Bill Nemitz of The Portland Press Herald wrote.

Now she’s at it again. On Sunday, she laid down what sounded like a clear line on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee: Anyone “who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me,” she said in a television interview. How centrist! But then she quickly seemed to back away from her bold promise (knowing full well, I assume, that she had already guaranteed herself some headlines making her sound like a moderate).

She argued that John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, who are both on the court already, fit her definition of justices who would not overturn Roe. They both respect the importance of judicial precedent, she explained, and therefore would not overturn “established law” like Roe.

It is a dubious prediction, given that both Roberts and Gorsuch showed themselves to be quite willing, just last month, to overturn decades-old legal precedents. They have also already voted to undermine Roe, upholding laws that restrict access to abortion. There is every reason to believe that they — with Trump’s latest nominee — will continue in the same direction, including the actual or effective overturning of Roe.

I’m among the plurality of Americans who find abortion to be a vexing issue. I understand why many people believe women should have the right to control their bodies and choose to have an abortion at any time. I also understand why many others believe that a fetus is a living being who, at some point, has a right to life.