Reproductive Rights

Abortion And Family Planning

20-Week Abortion Ban

Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Banned Abortions After 20 Weeks Without Exceptions

2013: Cassidy Was Original Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks Without Exceptions. In June 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill banning most abortion across the country twenty weeks after conception. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would create a nationwide ban on abortions performed at 20 weeks or later, except in cases where the life of the woman is in danger. The bill originally did not provide exceptions to the ban in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest against a minor. It also would impose criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban and subject violators to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both.’ The House approved the bill by a vote of 228 to 196. As of November 2013, the Senate had taken any substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 251, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1797]

• During Committee Hearing On Bill, Its Primary Author Claimed Rape Resulted In Few Pregnancies. According to Politico, “A House Republican pushing for a 20-week nationwide ban on abortions said Wednesday that the incidence of pregnancies resulting from rape is ‘very low’ — then scrambled to clarify his comment after it went viral with comparisons to former GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin. ‘The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,’ said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) as the House Judiciary Committee debated his bill to ban abortions nationwide after 20 weeks including in cases of rape and incest. After the committee meeting, Franks told POLITICO: ‘My bill does nothing to restrict abortion even before the first five months, so all issues related to rape are long since dealt with.’ He said that Democrats are the ones who ‘constantly want to inject’ rape into the abortion debate and have done so ever since the original Roe v Wade case.” [Politico, 6/12/13]
• After Uproar Over Franks’ Comments, Bill Revised To Include Exceptions For Rape And Incest And Assigned New Floor Manager. According to Politico, “Rep. Trent Franks’s (R-Ariz.) bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide now includes an exception for rape and incest after his remarks about rape and pregnancy created an uproar. And it’s not Franks’s bill anymore — or more precisely, he won’t be managing his own bill when it goes to the House floor Tuesday. He’s being replaced with a high-profile House GOP woman. A spokesman for Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) confirmed Friday to POLITICO that she’ll be managing the debate, and that the bill is being changed to include the new exception.” [Politico, 6/14/13]
• Bill Later Changed To Include Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And The Life Of The Mother. ‘According to the Associated Press, “Republicans quietly altered the bill to include an exception to the 20-week ban for instances of rape and incest. Democrats still balked, saying the exception would require a woman to prove that she had reported the rape to authorities. The bill has an exception when a physical condition threatens the life of the mother, but Democratic efforts to include other health exceptions were rebuffed. The legislation would ban abortions that take place 20 weeks after conception, which is equivalent to 22 weeks of pregnancy.” [Associated Press, 6/18/13]
• Rape Exception Required Women To Prove That They Had Reported Rape To Authorities, Which Is Not Required In Rape Exceptions In Other Federal Abortion Laws. According to Mother Jones, “But it does contain a provision that redefines rape exemptions, significantly limiting the number of women who would qualify. In order to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks under this law, a woman who was raped must be able to prove that she reported the rape to authorities—a requirement not present in other rape exceptions to federal abortion laws. [. . .] It is more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment, the law barring federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. Hyde specifically exempts cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake—with no requirement that women have documentation from police that they reported the crime.” [Mother Jones, 6/18/13]

Access to Abortion

Emergency Medical Treatment

2011: Cassidy Voted To Potentially Permit Hospitals And Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion, Even If It Would Save A Woman’s Life In An Emergency. In October 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “prohibit[ed] any federal agency, state or local government that receives federal funding from discriminating against a ‘health care entity’ that refuses to receive training on how to perform abortions; provide such training; pay for, participate in, or perform abortions; or offer referrals for abortion services. The bill defines a ‘health care entity’ as an individual physician or other health care professional, hospital, provider-sponsored organization, health maintenance organization, insurance plan, or any other health care facility, organization or plan.” Congressional Quarterly reported elsewhere that “[m]uch of the debate [during committee consideration of the legislation] centered on a provision that would give ‘conscience rights’ to hospital workers who did not wish to help provide abortions. Democrats warned that the language could allow hospital employees to stand idle even as a woman faced death without care. Republicans denied that assertion.” The provisions were part of a larger bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “barred the use of federal funds to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion services. The bill also would [have] require[d] that insurance companies offering plans on state exchanges that cover abortion services also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 172; however, no substantive action on the measure was taken by the Senate. [House Vote 789, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]

 

• Bill’s Opponents Said Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment. According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act's requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]
  
   
• Bill Authors Argued That Its Conscience Provisions Would Not Conflict With Current Emergency Care Laws, Because They Already Required Stabilizing An “Unborn Child.” According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Subsection (a), paragraph (6) inserts ‘Subject to subsection (g)’ before the clause regarding emergency services including the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). There is not a conflict between the conscience clause and EMTALA because EMTALA references stabilizing the woman and her ‘unborn child.’ The language clarifies that the general reference to ‘emergency services as required by State or Federal law’ should not be construed to allow states to override conscience protections by labeling broad abortion mandates as ‘emergency service’ requirements.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
  
   
• Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus. According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
  
   
• The Catholic Health Association, Which Supported The Overall Bill’s Goals, Said It Opposed Bill’s Changes To Emergency Medical Care Requirements. According to a letter from Catholic Health Association President and CEO Carol Keehan, reprinted in the Congressional Record, “The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) would like to express our continued support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn and of providers’ conscience rights. We have had the opportunity to review your revised version of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes a reference to a new provision regarding provider nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the ‘Weldon Amendment,’ without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not believe that there is a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]

Birth Control

Blunt Amendment

Cassidy’s Response To Blunt Amendment Rejection

Cassidy Issued A Statement On The Senate’s Rejection Of The Blunt Amendment. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement on the tabling of Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to end the unconstitutional contraception mandate. ‘Today’s vote to table Senator Blunt’s ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,’ is very disappointing. This was good legislation - it would reverse the unconstitutional contraception mandate in the President’s health care law and would preserve the constitutional right of religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years. ‘Unfortunately, this is only one of many unconstitutional flaws in the President’s health care law. House Republicans will continue to fight to reverse not only the contraception mandate but the entire health care law.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 3/2/12]

Cassidy Called The Rejection Of The Blunt Amendment “Disappointing” Because It Was “Good Legislation” That Preserved Constitutional And Religious Freedoms. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement on the tabling of Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to end the unconstitutional contraception mandate. ‘Today’s vote to table Senator Blunt’s ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,’ is very disappointing. This was good legislation - it would reverse the unconstitutional contraception mandate in the President’s health care law and would preserve the constitutional right of religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years. ‘Unfortunately, this is only one of many unconstitutional flaws in the President’s health care law. House Republicans will continue to fight to reverse not only the contraception mandate but the entire health care law.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 3/2/12]

Consequences Of Allowing Employers To Deny Coverage

Blunt Amendment Would Have Allowed Employers To Deny ACA-Mandated Coverage Based On Religious Or Moral Grounds

Controversial Senate Amendment, The Blunt Amendment, Proposed To Give All Employers, Religious And Non-Religious, The Ability To Opt-Out Of Health Care Requirements With Which They Disagreed On Moral Or Religious Grounds. According to CNN Wire, “The Senate is set to vote Thursday on a controversial amendment pushed by Senate Republicans that would allow employers to opt out of health care coverage they disagree with on moral grounds. The so-called ‘conscience’ amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, is the Senate Republicans’ response to the simmering controversy over a recent Obama administration decision to mandate the kind of health care coverage provided by religious employers. ‘This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles,’ stated an early February press release from Blunt. ‘This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.’” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]

Blunt Offered His Amendment As A Reaction To A Department of Health and Human Services Directive To Require All Employers To Offer Contraception Coverage In Health Plans. According to CNN Wire, “While Blunt’s amendment takes a broad approach, the main issue involves whether religious employers should have to include coverage for contraception in health plans offered to employees at affiliated institutions, such as hospitals. Earlier this month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius issued a directive that would have required all employers, including religious organizations, to include such coverage in health insurance offered to their employees. While churches were exempt, the mandate covered religious affiliated institutions.” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]

• Churches And Other Religious Institutions, But Not Their Affiliates, Were Exempted From The Requirement. According to CNN Wire, “Part of the uproar [over the HHS directive] surrounded universities and hospitals affiliated with religions, which were not given the same exemptions as churches and other religious institutions.” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]
• The Blunt Amendment Said That ACA Requirements Infringed On The Rights Of Conscience Of Insurers And Plan Sponsors. According to CNN Wire, “Blunt’s amendment states the president’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, imposes requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers and plan sponsors. While the law exempts some religious groups, it does not allow all those with religious or moral objections to decline providing coverage, the amendment says.” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]
• The Blunt Amendment Would Have Deemed Entities Who Refused Coverage On Moral Or Religious Grounds Not In Violation Of ACA. According to CNN Wire, “Part of the uproar surrounded universities and hospitals affiliated with religions, which were not given the same exemptions as churches and other religious institutions. The amendment would establish that an entity refusing coverage on religious or moral grounds is not in violation of the law.” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]

Opponents Argued That Blunt Amendment Would Allow Employers To Deny Wide Range Of Services And Roll Back Anti-Discrimination Protections

Democrats Argued That The Blunt Amendment Was Too Broad And Would Allow Employers To Deny A Wide Range Of Services. According to Christian Science Monitor, “Democrats say the Blunt measure is overly broad and would allow employers to block a wide variety of healthcare services on the grounds of a vague heading of ‘religious beliefs and moral convictions’ that could be extended to deny a wide range of services.” [Christian Science Monitor, 3/1/12]

Opponents Of The Blunt Amendment Argued That The Measure Would Have Rolled Back Some Of The Affordable Care Act’s Anti-Discrimination Protections. According to Huffington Post, “Opponents of the bill pointed out that the amendment not only would have allowed employers to cherry-pick women’s health care options based on moral beliefs, but it also would have rolled back some of the basic anti-discrimination protections in the Affordable Care Act. For instance, under the amendment, an employer could refuse to cover things like HIV/AIDS screenings, prenatal care for single mothers, mammograms, vaccinations for children and even screenings for diabetes based on objections to a perceived immoral lifestyle.” [Huffington Post, 3/1/12]

Contraception Mandate Announcement

Cassidy Issued A Statement Supporting The Catholic Bishop’s Rejection Of The Contraception Mandate. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy released the following statement in support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: ‘Today, the Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the White House’s attempt to reform the contraception mandate. It is important that those with a moral objection have the freedom to practice their faith without interference from government intrusion. Religious freedom has always been a part of American history and it is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 2/10/12]

Cassidy Issued A Statement Regarding Obama’s Contraception Mandate Announcement. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s announcement regarding his contraception mandate. ‘Americans fundamentally believe that government should not intervene in churches and religious groups. Recently, the President crossed that line by mandating churches and religious organizations provide free contraception and Plan B. Simply put, the President decided that implementing his health care law was more important than protecting religious liberty. ‘Even though the President slightly backtracked on his attack of religious freedom, he still did not go far enough. The new rule still mandates that religious organizations with moral objections facilitate access to contraception. Furthermore, the narrow exemption will create moral dilemmas for private business men and women of faith who do not wish to pay for contraception coverage.  Our ultimate goal needs to be repealing the President’s health care law and replacing it with a responsible and constitutional alternative.  No American should ever be forced to act against their religious beliefs.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 2/10/12]

• Cassidy Condemned Obama For Implementing The Mandate Over Protecting Religious Liberty. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s announcement regarding his contraception mandate. ‘Americans fundamentally believe that government should not intervene in churches and religious groups. Recently, the President crossed that line by mandating churches and religious organizations provide free contraception and Plan B. Simply put, the President decided that implementing his health care law was more important than protecting religious liberty. ‘Even though the President slightly backtracked on his attack of religious freedom, he still did not go far enough. The new rule still mandates that religious organizations with moral objections facilitate access to contraception. Furthermore, the narrow exemption will create moral dilemmas for private business men and women of faith who do not wish to pay for contraception coverage.  Our ultimate goal needs to be repealing the President’s health care law and replacing it with a responsible and constitutional alternative.  No American should ever be forced to act against their religious beliefs.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 2/10/12]

Poverty

Said Birth Control Would Not Solve Poverty

Cassidy Said That The Birth Control Pill Would Not Be A Solution To Poverty.  According to CNN, “CASSIDY: Republicans can address this. If you’re speaking about HIV and have a couple that’s married, you obviously want the man to use a condom to protect himself or his partner.  Believe me that’s a thing. I think what is kind of the false thought is that the birth control pill will be a cure for poverty. I say that because Japan and China have a demographic time bomb.  Where they’ve been so strict on their population control, that the average age of their population is no -- is increasing rapidly and they are not reproducing or replacing their people.’  [CNN, 7/6/12]

School-Based Health Clinic Referrals

1997: Cassidy Opposed Proposed Legislation That Limited School-Based Health Clinics From Being Able To Discuss Birth Control And Make Family Planning Referrals For Their Teenage Clients

The Proposal Would Have Prevented School-Based Health Clinics From Being Able To Discuss Birth Control And Make Family Planning Referrals For Their Teenage Clients. According to the Times-Picayune, “School-based health clinics will still be able to discuss birth control and make family planning referrals for their teen-age clients, if action by a Senate committee stands. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee refused Wednesday to approve House Bill 2393 sponsored by Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, which would have further restricted services in about 20 school-based clinics.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]

• The Proposed Legislation Would Have Prohibited Clinic Personnel From “Referring Students To Any Organization Or Clinic For A Contraceptive, Or From Discussing Contraception With Students.” According to the Times-Picayune, “Bowler’s bill would have prohibited clinic personnel from referring students to any organization or clinic for a contraceptive, or from discussing contraception with students. The clinics are currently prohibited from handing out condoms or other birth-control devices, and from discussing or making referrals for abortions.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97] 
• The Proposed Uniform Consent Form Limited The Ability Of Health-Care Professionals To Refer Medically Necessary Services Not Available In Schools. According to The Advocate, “The (proposed) uniform consent form includes language that limits the ability of health-care professionals to refer for medically necessary services that school health centers cannot provide,’ the minority report said. The minority report is signed by Irons, state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Dr. Bill Cassidy, Dr. Gary Wiltz and state adolescent and school-health program director Sylvia Sterne. ‘We believe it is inappropriate for a small group of lay people to restrict the ability of licensed physicians, nurses and mental health counselors to provided needed care to unserved and underserved school children,’ the group said. The group said a locally elected school board is the appropriate body to approve clinic services and it is also the appropriate body to develop its own consent form ‘consonant with the needs of its population and the mores of its community.’” [Advocate, 7/3/97]
• The Proposal Would Have Restricted Services In About 20 School-Based Clinics. According to the Times-Picayune, “School-based health clinics will still be able to discuss birth control and make family planning referrals for their teen-age clients, if action by a Senate committee stands. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee refused Wednesday to approve House Bill 2393 sponsored by Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, which would have further restricted services in about 20 school-based clinics.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]

The Proposed Legislation Failed

The Proposed Legislation For Physicians To Limit Birth Control And Make Family Planning Referrals For Their Teen-Age Clients Failed To Pass. According to the Times-Picayune, “School-based health clinics will still be able to discuss birth control and make family planning referrals for their teen-age clients, if action by a Senate committee stands. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee refused Wednesday to approve House Bill 2393 sponsored by Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, which would have further restricted services in about 20 school-based clinics. The panel voted 5-1 to defer the bill, which means it won’t likely come up for discussion again this session.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]

1997: Cassidy Opposed Failed Bill That Would Have Banned School Health Centers From Referring Or Counseling Any Student For “Contraceptive[s] Or Abortifacients.” In 1997, Dr. Bill Cassidy, not then a member of the Louisiana legislator, opposed a bill that would have banned school health centers from referring or counseling any student to use contraceptives or “abortifacients.” According to the Legislative Fiscal Office, “The proposed law would prohibit health centers in schools from referring or counseling any student relative to contraceptive or abortifacients [sic] drugs, devices, or other similar products. The bill would further require: 1) any consent form that requires the signature of the parent or guardian of a student to state the prohibitions; 2) a contact person be named on the consent forms, relative to reporting violations, post signs acknowledging prohibitions; 3) all contracts and proposals for establishing school-based health centers must recite the law relative to the prohibitions.” The bill was passed in the House, by a vote of 74 to 19. The bill was then referred to the Senate Health & Welfare committee, where it died. [Bill Text, House Bill 2393; Roll Call, 5/29/97; Bill History, 5/30/97; Legislative Fiscal Office, 6/10/97]

• Proposed Bill Would Have Required Parental Consent Forms To Confirm The Prohibitions On Providing References Or Counseling For Abortions Or Contraceptives. According to the bill digest, prepared by House Legislative Services, “Proposed law requires the office of public health to also: (1) Require all consent forms that require the signature of the parent or guardian of a student to state the prohibitions provided in present law and proposed law.” [Bill Text, House Bill 2393]

Cassidy Argued Proposed Legislation Limited Physicians From Providing Care To Those Who Needed It

Cassidy Opposed The Proposed Uniform Consent Form Because It Limited Physicians To Provide Needed Care To School Children. According to The Advocate, “The (proposed) uniform consent form includes language that limits the ability of health-care professionals to refer for medically necessary services that school health centers cannot provide,’ the minority report said. The minority report is signed by Irons, state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Dr. Bill Cassidy , Dr. Gary Wiltz and state adolescent and school-health program director Sylvia Sterne. ‘We believe it is inappropriate for a small group of lay people to restrict the ability of licensed physicians, nurses and mental health counselors to provided needed care to unserved and underserved school children,’ the group said. The group said a locally elected school board is the appropriate body to approve clinic services and it is also the appropriate body to develop its own consent form ‘consonant with the needs of its population and the mores of its community.’” [Advocate, 7/3/97]

Cassidy Said The Legislation Prevented Doctors From Discussing Teenage Health Issues And Eliminated “Comprehensive Health Care For Students Who Might Otherwise Not Have It.” According to the Times-Picayune, “Public health providers said the additional restrictions would put them in serious dilemmas. Dr. Bill Cassidy, an adolescent health doctor with the Louisiana State University Medical Center in Baton Rouge, said the bill thwarts local decisions about the health centers, prevents doctors from discussing some important teen-age health issues, and in effect, eliminates comprehensive health care for students who might otherwise not have it. ‘As a conservative Republican doctor, I am amazed conservatives support this bill,’ he said.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]

Cassidy Wanted Locally Elected Board Members To Decide On Outcome

Cassidy Wanted The Decision To Approve Clinic Services To Be Made By A Locally Elected School Board. According to The Advocate, “The (proposed) uniform consent form includes language that limits the ability of health-care professionals to refer for medically necessary services that school health centers cannot provide,’ the minority report said. The minority report is signed by Irons, state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Dr. Bill Cassidy, Dr. Gary Wiltz and state adolescent and school-health program director Sylvia Sterne. ‘We believe it is inappropriate for a small group of lay people to restrict the ability of licensed physicians, nurses and mental health counselors to provided needed care to unserved and underserved school children,’ the group said. The group said a locally elected school board is the appropriate body to approve clinic services and it is also the appropriate body to develop its own consent form ‘consonant with the needs of its population and the mores of its community.’” [Advocate, 7/3/97]

Cassidy Was Surprised Conservatives Supported The Legislation

Cassidy Said That As A “As A Conservative Republican Doctor, I Am Amazed Conservatives Support This Bill.” According to the Times-Picayune, “Public health providers said the additional restrictions would put them in serious dilemmas. Dr. Bill Cassidy, an adolescent health doctor with the Louisiana State University Medical Center in Baton Rouge, said the bill thwarts local decisions about the health centers, prevents doctors from discussing some important teen-age health issues, and in effect, eliminates comprehensive health care for students who might otherwise not have it. ‘As a conservative Republican doctor, I am amazed conservatives support this bill,’ he said.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Decision

Cassidy Supported The Supreme Court’s Decision

Cassidy Applauded The Supreme Court’s Decision To “Uphold Religious Freedom.” According to a press release by the office of Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold religious liberty in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The case focused on whether the government can force business owners to comply with mandates that violate their religious faith. Dr. Cassidy released the following statement: ‘Freedom of religion and our First Amendment rights must be protected and respected. The President and congressional Democrats supported this federal mandate, which conflicts with Louisiana values. It’s not the government’s responsibility to tell business owners the extent of which they can practice their faith in everyday business decisions. I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to stop Washington bureaucrats from taking away this religious liberty. This is a sacred freedom that must be preserved.” [Office of Bill Cassidy, 6/30/14]

Cassidy Was “Proud To Support Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom.” On his official Facebook account, Cassidy posted an image of him and the following text, “Proud to support Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom. I Support Religious Freedom For All.’’ [Bill Cassidy Facebook, 6/30/14]

Cassidy Was “Pleased” That The Supreme Court Agreed To Take The Hobby Lobby Case. According to the Times-Picayune, “In the new case, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether corporations can opt out of a mandated coverage by the Affordable Care Act -- contraception -- based on their moral or religious objections. The court is considering two separate lawsuits. One is by Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain, which won a lower court ruling that said it did not have to provide birth control coverage to its 13,000 full-time employees. The other case from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of Pennsylvania, which lost in the lower courts on its attempt to bar contraceptive health care services for about 950 workers. […] Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are likely in late March, with a final ruling expected by the end of June. The Supreme Court announced it would take the case on Tuesday. Reps. John Fleming, R-Minden, and Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, said they are pleased the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.” [Times-Picayune, 11/26/13]

Cassidy Urged The Supreme Court To Protect “Religious Liberty” In Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. According to a press release by the office of Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. reacted to the decision by the Supreme Court to review Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which centers on whether Washington can force business owners to comply with mandates that violate their religious faith. He released the following statement: ‘Religious liberty and the right to conscience are clearly protected by the Constitution. That should be respected by our government. Unfortunately, President Obama and Senate Democrats have not shown that respect. Therefore, I urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and protect the religious freedom of all Americans.’’ [Office of Bill Cassidy, 11/26/13]

Conscience Clause

2011: Cassidy Voted To Create Conscience Clauses That Would Allow Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Services

2011: Cassidy Voted To Create A So-Called “Conscience Clause” Law That Allowed Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Services. In May 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “establish[ed] ‘conscience protections’ for health care providers who object to providing abortion services.” The House passed the bill with a vote of 251 to 175. The Senate took no subsequent action. [House Vote 292, 5/4/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11]

• According to NARAL, Conscience Clauses (Or Refusal Laws) Endanger Women’s Health. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, “When health-care institutions and providers deny women access to information about all their health-care options, they can compromise women’s health. Of course, pregnancy is a welcome development in many women’s lives. But for some others, pregnancy can be dangerous, making access to contraceptives and abortion services imperative. For instance, conditions such as cancer, rheumatic fever, severe diabetes, malnutrition, phlebitis, sickle cell anemia and heart disease, significantly increase the risks associated with pregnancy. Women in rural areas may face serious health risks if the only hospital in their area refuses to provide certain reproductive-health services. One Catholic sole-provider hospital in rural California denied a sterilization to a 34-year-old woman following her ninth pregnancy. Although the woman’s doctor advised her against any subsequent pregnancies, and sterilization would have been safest and easiest immediately following delivery, the hospital refused to permit the procedure.” [NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1/1/13]

Exceptions

Rape and Incest

Cassidy Opposed Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest, Was “Staunchly Pro-Life.” According to a blog by Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, “In Georgia, three top Senate candidates — Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston — all co-sponsored the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act,’ which gives ‘full human rights to human zygotes from the moment of fertilization,’ as Laura Bassett puts it. In Iowa, state senator Joni Ernst — who is running against Dem Bruce Braley — supported a ‘Personhood’ amendment to the state constitution. In Michigan, Terri Lynn Land didn’t mention rape or incest as exceptions to her anti-abortion stance in an interview with Politico. In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy — who is running against Mary Landrieu — was marked down by the Louisiana Family Forum as opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest (a spokesperson said he is ‘staunchly pro-life’).” [Washington Post, 4/15/14]

Cassidy Opposed Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to The Advocate, “Given that abortion is always a hotly debated topic in Louisiana and that some people vote primarily on their abortion views, it seemed like a good time to clarify where the delegation stands on exceptions for abortions in cases of rape and incest.  It turns out that, out of the seven [Louisiana] anti-abortion Republicans, only Rep. Rodney Alexander, of Quitman, seemingly believes in allowing for abortion exceptions in cases of rape and incest. They did not respond to questions about the topic this week, but U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, both opposed abortion without any such exceptions when they first ran for U.S. Senate and state Senate, respectively.” [Advocate, 8/26/12]

Life Of The Mother

2011: Cassidy Voted To Potentially Allow Hospitals And Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion When Needed To Save A Woman’s Life In A Medical Emergency. October 2011, Cassidy effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ensured “that nothing in the [underlying] bill would exempt hospitals or medical providers from state or federal laws requiring they give care that would prevent the death of pregnant women with emergency medical conditions.” The underlying bill, according to Congressional Quarterly, included provisions that would have “prohibit[ed] any federal agency, state or local government that receives federal funding from discriminating against a ‘health care entity’ that refuses to receive training on how to perform abortions; provide such training; pay for, participate in, or perform abortions; or offer referrals for abortion services. The bill defines a ‘health care entity’ as an individual physician or other health care professional, hospital, provider-sponsored organization, health maintenance organization, insurance plan, or any other health care facility, organization or plan.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be reported back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 173 to 249. The underlying bill passed the House; however, the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 788, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]

• Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment. According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act's requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]
  
   
• The Catholic Health Association, Which Supported The Underlying Bill’s Goals, Said It Opposed Bill’s Changes To Emergency Medical Care Requirements. According to a letter from Catholic Health Association President and CEO Carol Keehan, reprinted in the Congressional Record, “The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) would like to express our continued support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn and of providers’ conscience rights. We have had the opportunity to review your revised version of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes a reference to a new provision regarding provider nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the ‘Weldon Amendment,’ without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not believe that there is a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]
  
   
• Underlying Bill’s Authors Argued That Its Conscience Provisions Would Not Conflict With Current Emergency Care Laws, Because They Already Required Stabilizing An “Unborn Child.” According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Subsection (a), paragraph (6) inserts ‘Subject to subsection (g)’ before the clause regarding emergency services including the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). There is not a conflict between the conscience clause and EMTALA because EMTALA references stabilizing the woman and her ‘unborn child.’ The language clarifies that the general reference to ‘emergency services as required by State or Federal law’ should not be construed to allow states to override conscience protections by labeling broad abortion mandates as ‘emergency service’ requirements.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]
  
   
• Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus. According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]

Federal Funding Of Abortions

Affordable Care Act

Opposed Federal Funding For Abortion

2014: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “permanently prohibit[ed] the use of federal funds, facilities or staff to provide abortion coverage and services, except in cases of rape or incest and for saving the life of the mother.” The House passed by a vote of 227 to 188; as of the end of February, 2014, the Senate had taken no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 30, 1/28/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]

 

• Bill Prohibited Individuals And Small Businesses From Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Purchase A Health Insurance Plan That Covers Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill prohibits individuals and small businesses from receiving federal subsidies and tax credits under the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152) to purchase qualified health care plans that cover abortions. […] Specifically, the measure prohibits individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. […] It also prohibits small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
  
   
• Bill Exempted Rape, Incest, “Physical” Threats To A Woman’s Life, And Treatment Of Complications Arising From An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “These abortion funding prohibitions would not apply for pregnancies that occur as the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would result in death unless an abortion is performed. They also would not apply with regard to funding for the treatment of complications or other disorders that are caused or exacerbated by an abortion. […] For both individuals and small employers, the prohibition [on ACA subsidy usage] would not apply to health policies that provide abortion coverage only for cases of rape or incest, for physical disorders that a physician certifies would place a woman in danger unless the abortion is performed, or for treatment of any disorder that has been caused or exacerbated by an abortion.” The bill, as effectively modified by the House Rules Committee, does not use the term “forcible rape.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14; Rules Committee Print 113-33, 1/22/14]
  
   
• Bill Stated That Individuals, Companies And State And Local Governments May Still Purchase Health Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion Or Separate Abortion Coverage If They Don’t Use Any Federal Funds. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The measure states that nothing in it should be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, state or locality from purchasing separate health insurance coverage that includes abortion — or restricting the ability of any non-federal health insurance coverage provider from offering abortion coverage — as long as the coverage is entirely paid for with non-federal funds. Such extra coverage, however, could not be purchased using funds that a state also counts as matching funds for a federally funded program. […] The bill states that the restriction [on use of ACA subsidies] should not be construed as prohibiting any individual from purchasing separate coverage for abortions, or a health plan that includes abortions, as long as no credit is allowed with respect to the premiums for such coverage. For small employers, it is not to be construed as prohibiting any employer from purchasing separate coverage for abortions or restricting any non-federal health insurance issuer from offering such a plan, as long as it is not paid for with any employer contribution eligible for the credit.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
  
   
• Opponents Argued Bill Would Undermine Women’s Rights More Broadly, By Discouraging Private Health Insurance Coverage Plans From Including Abortion Coverage, Thus Forcing Women To Ask For – And Pay More For – Separate Abortion Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it constitutes yet another attack on women’s rights that could undermine access to abortion. The bill, they say, goes far beyond prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions and could drive insurance companies away from providing abortion coverage as a basic element of health insurance policies. Everyone agrees that we want to reduce abortions, but the bill goes about it the wrong way, they say, discouraging insurers from including abortion coverage in comprehensive health care policies and erecting new hurdles for women by making them seek out and pay more to buy a separate policy that covers abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
  
   
• Opponents Pointed To Bill’s Lack Of A Health Exception For Non-Life Threatening Conditions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “They also argue that the bill contains no exceptions to protect a woman’s health in non-life-threatening situations, providing no support in the case of pregnancies that might threaten future fertility or worsen a chronic health condition such as heart disease, as well as providing no protections in the case of a terminal fetal anomaly. Abortion, they say, is a constitutionally protected right and a basic health care service, and Americans want to see Congress work to create jobs and fix our crumbling national infrastructure, not launch more anti-woman crusades.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]

Cassidy Voted In Favor Of H.AMDT.509, An Amendment Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. On November 7, 2009, Cassidy voted in favor of H.AMDT.509, an amendment Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. According to the Congressional Record Service, the legislation amended H.R.3963, the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, and ‘prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. Amendment does allow individuals, who receive affordability credits or not, to separately purchase with their own funds, plans that cover elective abortions. Finally, the amendment clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.’ On November 7, 2009, the House agreed to the amendment. [H.AMDT.509, 11/7/13]

Cassidy Supported Blocking Taxpayer Funded Abortions And Tried Passing Legislation To Discourage Abortion By Making Pregnant Mothers Carry Their Children To Term. According to Cassidy for Congress via Archive.org, “The Right To Life: As a physician, Bill Cassidy knows every human life is a blessing deserving equal protection under the law from womb to natural death. He is a co-author of legislation to block taxpayer funding of abortion and is working to pass legislation to discourage abortion by helping pregnant mothers carry their children to term and care for their children after birth.” [Cassidy for Congress via Archive.org, Captured on 10/1/10]

Cassidy Outlined Pledge To America Healthcare Plan; Included Ban On Federal Funding For Abortion. According to a press release from Cassidy, obtained via Project Vote Smart, “To strengthen the patient-physician relationship by, among other things, increasing the use and usefulness of health savings accounts -- health savings accounts that put the patient firmly in control of her health care dollar, and, in so doing, allows her to make the decisions that are important for her health, but also for her finances. We will ensure access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. And lastly, we will join with 70 percent of the American people that desire to ban federal funding for abortions.” [Project Vote Smart, 9/23/10] 

Insurance Plans Coverage 

2013: Voted Against Providing Federal Funds For Insurance Plans That Covered Abortions

Cassidy Said That Despite Obama’s Promises Otherwise, Federal Funds Were “Clearly” Going To Abortion Providers Through ObamaCare Grants. According to NE News Now, “Cary Bogue, founder of Project Wildfire, says the pro-life website and Congressman Cassidy are asking President Obama to ‘keep his promise’ to not provide federal funds to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. ‘Congressman Cassidy has spoken out strongly against the award of these ‘navigator’ grants, which total $650,000, to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America,’ says Bogue. Despite Obama’s promise during the healthcare debate, says Cassidy, federal funds are clearly going to abortion providers through ObamaCare grants.” [NE News Now, 8/29/13]

2013: Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Would Prohibit Providing Federal Education Funds To State Or Local Agencies That Indirectly Provided Students With Abortions, Abortion-Related Materials Or Referrals, Or Directions To Abortion Services. In March 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit the provision of federal education funding to state or local educational agencies that make health services available to students through school-based health centers, unless those centers certify that they [would] not provide students with abortions, abortion-related materials or referrals, or directions to abortion services.’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 1122; Congressional Actions, 3/13/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 3/21/13]

2013: Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill To Ban Funding Abortions With Federal Funds. In May 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would prohibit] the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. [Would prohibit] federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, 5/14/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 5/14/13]

Co-Sponsored Bill That Prohibited Federal Funds From Covering Any Health Plan That Covered Abortion Under ACA

Cassidy Co-Sponsored The Protect Life Act, Which Would Prohibit Federal Funds From Covering Any Health Plan That Covered Abortion Under ACA. In January 2011, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to be used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)’ The House adopted the bill by a vote of 251 to 172. The Senate took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 358; Congressional Actions, 1/20/11]

2011: Cassidy Voted To Bar The Use Of Federal Funding To Purchase Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion Services. In October 2011, Cassidy voted fora bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “barred the use of federal funds to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion services. The bill also would [have] require[d] that insurance companies offering plans on state exchanges that cover abortion services also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services. It also would [have] bar[red] federal agencies and state or local entities that receive funding under the health care overhaul law from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide abortions or training related to abortions.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 172; however, no substantive action on the measure was taken by the Senate. [House Vote 789, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]

• Supporters Said The Affordable Care Act Did Not Prohibit Taxpayer Funding For Abortion, And The Bill Would Rectify That. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), the bill’s sponsor, said, “[A]s recently as last year, a survey revealed that 67 percent of Americans support a ban on abortion funding. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act failed to include this prohibition, and that is why we are here today. President Obama indicated his support for upholding the ban on Federal funding for abortion in health reform, and that is exactly what the Protect Life Act does. The issue of prohibiting taxpayer funds for abortion is important to the American people. And so it should be important to Congress as well. Protecting the unalienable right to life is important to the American people. It should be to the Congress as well.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11] 
  
   
• Opponents Said The Legislation Infringed Upon A Woman’s Right To Choose By Effectively Eliminating Access To Abortion Care For Many Women And Banned Abortion Coverage Even In Plans That Are Not Federally Subsidized. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said, “I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, legislation that infringes upon a woman’s right to choose. […] However, the Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of Federal dollars to fund abortions. Instead, H.R. 358 will eliminate access to abortion care for many women by banning insurance plans regulated by the Affordable Care Act from offering abortion-inclusive coverage if they take even one federally subsidized customer. So if a plan takes one subsidized customer, then they can’t provide abortion coverage insurance to anyone else in the plan. What’s even more concerning is that this legislation could place many women who need reproductive health care in dangerous, potentially life-threatening situations by expanding a lopsided policy that allows health workers and hospitals the ability to refuse to provide and refer for abortion care and even deny emergency abortion care.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]

Voted To Prohibit Use Of Federal Plans, Insurance Subsidies To Pay For Or Cover Abortions

2009: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit The Use Of Federal Funds, Including Insurance Subsidies, To Pay For An Abortion Or To Cover Any Part Of The Costs Of Any Health Plan That Included Abortion Coverage. In November 2009, Cassidy voted for an amendment to the House’s version of health care reform legislation, that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would bar the use of federal funds authorized in the [underlying] bill to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion coverage, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury or illness that would, as certified by a physician, endanger the woman’s life. Individuals with subsidized policies who also want abortion coverage would have to purchase it separately, using their own money. It would prohibit individuals from using affordability credits to purchase a plan that provides for elective abortions.’ The House adopted the amendment by a vote 240 to 194. The underlying bill subsequently passed the House, but the Senate did not take substantive action on the bill before replacing its contents with those of a related bill. [House Vote 884, 11/7/09; Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3962] 

• The Amendment Allowed For An Exception If The Pregnancy Was A Result Of Rape, Incest Or If The Woman’s Life Was Endangered. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment allowed for an exception ‘if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury or illness that would, as certified by a physician, endanger the woman’s life.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09]
• The Amendment Required Individuals With Federally Subsidized Policies To Purchase Abortion Coverage Separately Using Their Own Money. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment required ‘individuals with subsidized policies who also want abortion coverage to purchase it separately using their own money.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09]
• The Amendment Prohibited Individuals From Using Affordability Credits To Purchase A Plan That Provided For Elective Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would ‘prohibit individuals from using affordability credits to purchase a plan that provides for elective abortions.” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09]

Exceptions For Rape, Incest, Life Of Mother In Danger 

2010: Cassidy Voted To Bar The Use Of Affordable Care Act Funds To Pay For Abortion Or Health Insurance That Covered Abortion, Except For Those That Arose From Rape, Incest Or When The Mother’s Life Was In Danger. In March 2010, Cassidy voted for amending the Affordable Care Act to bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortion or insurance plans that cover abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, the motion was to recommit the bill ‘to the House Budget Committee with instructions that it be immediately reported back with amendments that would bar the use of federal funds authorized in the bill to pay for an abortion or for a health plan that includes abortion coverage, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury or illness that would, as certified by a physician, endanger the woman’s life. Individuals with subsidized policies could purchase abortion coverage separately, with their own money.’ The vote was on the motion to recommit; the House rejected it by a vote of 199 to 232. [House Vote 166, 3/21/10; Congressional Quarterly, 3/21/10]

• Republicans Used Original Stupak Amendment Language In Motion To Recommit In Attempt To Stop Health Care Reconciliation Bill. According to the Minnesota Independent, “The Republicans tonight had one last chance to put a wrench in the Democrats plans to tweak the Senate health bill via reconciliation. It came in the form of something called a motion to recommit, which effectively represented the one GOP amendment allowed under the rules set for the health care vote. And they chose a doozy: Their amendment was the same abortion language found in the original House-passed bill, language that was inserted upon the insistence of Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the anti-abortion Democrat who vowed to oppose the bill otherwise.” [Minnesota Independent, 3/22/10]
• Stupak Opposed Motion To Recommit, Said Motion Was Really To Politicize Life, Not Prioritize It. According to Talking Points Memo, “Very strong, even inspiring speech by Rep. Stupak to set aside the Republican motion to recommit. ‘This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life. Vote no on this motion to recommit.’’ [Talking Points Memo, 3/22/10]

2009: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Federal Funding To Pay For Abortions, Except In The Case Of Rape, Incest, Or Life Endangerment To A Woman As Part Of A Republican Amendment To The Affordable Care Act. In November 2009, Cassidy voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ‘prohibit[ed] any federal funding from being used to pay for abortions, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger.’ The provision was part of a larger Republican health care reform proposal, that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “offer[ed] a substitute that [would have] provide[d] federal support to state high-risk pools and reinsurance programs, [would have] impose[d] new medical malpractice rules and [would have] cap[ped] non-economic damages and attorney fees, [would have] allow[ed] small businesses to form association health plans, and [would have] allow[ed] people to purchase insurance across state lines. The substitute also[would have] codifie[d] the Hyde Amendment concerning federal funding for abortion.’ The House rejected the amendment with a vote of 176 to 258. [House Vote 885, 11/7/09; Congressional Actions, 11/7/09; Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09; Congressional Quarterly, 11/7/09]

Co-Sponsored Bill No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, Which Changed The DefiNition Of Rape

“Forcible Rape”

2011: Cassidy Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. In January 2011, Cassidy was an original co-sponsor of a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Title I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience Protections - (Sec. 101) Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.” The House passed the bill with a vote of 251 to 175. The Senate took no subsequent action. [HR 3, 1/20/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11]

• The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Expanded Restrictions On Federal Abortion Funding. According to the Washington Post, “At 4 p.m. Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee will hold a hearing on H.R. 3, known as the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,’ sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing on H.R. 358, the ‘Protect Life Act,’ sponsored by the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Judiciary Committee Democrats and representatives from several pro-abortion-rights groups are holding a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s hearing on H.R. 3, which they denounce as ‘unacceptable attack on a woman’s right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress.’ Both measures would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding. The ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions across all federal programs by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which is typically renewed annually. It would also reinstate a ban on D.C. abortion funding, a move that some have contended would infringe on the district’s right self-government. The ‘Protect Life Act’ would prohibit federal funding of abortions under the national health care overhaul. It also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions.” [Washington Post, 2/8/11]
• The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Would Have Changed The Definition Of Rape By Using The Term “Forcible Rape.” According to the Washington Post, “Abortion-rights advocates charge that the measures would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions in cases where the woman’s life is threatened. They also argue that the bills go too far in prohibiting women from using their own private money to obtain insurance that covers a range of reproductive care. In addition, the Smith bill sparked controversy through its use of the term ‘forcible rape,’ which women’s rights groups charged was an attempt to change the definition of rape. The term was dropped from the bill last week” [Washington Post, 2/8/11]

IRS Involvement 

Cassidy Co-Sponsored The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act

Cassidy Was A Co-Sponsor Of The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” Which Changed IRS Tax Codes And Deduction Of Medical Expenses Only If Abortion Was In The Case Of Rape, Incest, Or Endangerment Of Life. According to the Washington Post, “But one thing the IRS probably isn’t very good at is deciding whether or not a woman has been raped. That’s why some provisions of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ don’t make a whole lot of sense. H.R. 7, which is sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), would change the tax code so that individuals may only deduct medical expenses related to abortion in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of life. That provision seems pretty innocuous until you stop and ask: Who’s supposed to decide when a medical expense is related to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest? Supporters of H.R. 7 — the bill has 164 co-sponsors, including 11 women and four Democrats — would give that authority to the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, that’s right. The same organization that has been vilified for targeting certain organizations with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names to help determine whether they qualify for tax-exempt status will be able to target individuals to make sure that they’re not improperly claiming deductions for an abortion that wasn’t due to rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.” [Washington Post, 1/22/14]

• Cassidy Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Prohibit Using Federal Funds For Any Abortion, Including Funds For Health Benefits Coverage That Includes Abortion Coverage. On September 30th, 2013, Daines co-sponsored HR 7, a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, would ‘prohibit the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law for any abortion. [Would] Prohibit[] federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.’ The bill was reported to the Judiciary Committee on January 23, 2014, and no subsequent action was taken. [HR 7, 1/24/14] 

The Bill Allowed The IRS Determine Whether A Woman Could Receive An Abortion

No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act Would Change U.S. Tax Code To Establish That “Individuals May Only Deduct Medical Expenses Related To Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or Endangerment Of Life.’ According to the Washington Post, “But one thing the IRS probably isn’t very good at is deciding whether or not a woman has been raped. That’s why some provisions of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ don’t make a whole lot of sense. H.R. 7, which is sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), would change the tax code so that individuals may only deduct medical expenses related to abortion in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of life.” [Washington Post, 1/22/14] 

The Bill Allowed The IRS To Determine Whether An Abortion’s Medical Expense Was Genuinely And Properly Reported 

Bill Would Empower IRS To Investigate Whether A Woman Had Improperly Attempted To Deduct Medical Expenses For An Abortion That Did Not Result From Rape, Incest Or To Save The Life Of The Mother. According to the Washington Post, “That provision seems pretty innocuous until you stop and ask: Who’s supposed to decide when a medical expense is related to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest? Supporters of H.R. 7 — the bill has 164 co-sponsors, including 11 women and four Democrats — would give that authority to the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, that’s right. The same organization that has been vilified for targeting certain organizations with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names to help determine whether they qualify for tax-exempt status will be able to target individuals to make sure that they’re not improperly claiming deductions for an abortion that wasn’t due to rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.” [Washington Post, 1/22/14]

• Bill Would Have Given The IRS “The Authority To Ask A Woman To Prove That She’s Been Raped.” According to the According to the Washington Post, “But one thing the IRS probably isn’t very good at is deciding whether or not a woman has been raped. That’s why some provisions of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ don’t make a whole lot of sense. H.R. 7, which is sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), would change the tax code so that individuals may only deduct medical expenses related to abortion in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of life […] Should the Internal Revenue Service have the authority to ask a woman to prove that she’s been raped?’ [Washington Post, 1/22/14]

“Fetal Pain” Intimidation

Cassidy Voted To Make It A Requirement For Women To Receive Information About The Way The Abortion They Were About To Receive Could Affect The Child. In June 2007, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to its Title on Legiscon, “Provides relative to a Woman’s Right to Know as relates to informed consent requirements. […] To amend and reenact R.S. 40:1299.35.6(C)(1)(a) and to enact R.S. 40:1299.35.6(A)(5)(d) and (B)(1)(g) and (h), relative to the performance of abortions; to provide for informed consent requirements; to provide for publication of materials by the Department of Health and Hospitals; and to provide for related matters.’ Passed Senate on June 19, 2007 by a vote of 34 to 2. Subsequently passed the House on June 26, 2007 by a vote of 98 to 1. The bill was signed by the Governor and became state law. [HB 25, 6/19/07]

• The Bill Required Doctors To Inform Women About How The Anesthesia Or Painkillers They Would Take Could Affect Their Unborn Child. According to the text of the bill obtained via Legiscon, “Ensure that every woman considering an abortion receive complete information regarding the availability of anesthesia or analgesics that would eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child that could be caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed. […] Informed consent; requirements. After a woman is determined to be pregnant, no abortion shall be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed if and only if at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician has informed the woman, orally and in person, of: The availability of anesthesia or analgesics to alleviate or eliminate organic pain to the unborn child that could be caused by the method of abortion to be employed.” [HB 25, 6/19/07]
  
   
• Cassidy Voted In Favor Of H.B. 25, A Bill That Provided Abortion Information Requirements. On June 19, 2007, Cassidy voted in favor of H.B. 25, a bill ‘relative to the performance of abortions; to provide for informed consent requirements; to provide for publication of materials by the Department of Health and Hospitals; and to provide for related matters.’ The bill passed the Senate, 34-2, and was signed into law on July 9, 2007. [Senate Vote, 6/19/07; H.B. 25, 7/9/07]

Cassidy Tweeted That Because Babies Are Given Anesthesia When Their Mothers Undergo Surgery, Fetuses Undergoing Abortion Feel Pain. According to Twitter, Cassidy’s personal account @BillCassidy, tweeted, “Anesthesia is given to babies for fetal surgery around the same age that some lives are taken by abortions. #theyfeelpain.” [Bill Cassidy Official Twitter, 11/8/13]

Cassidy Said He Was Pro-Life Because He Believed Inflicting Pain On The Unborn Violated “A Culture Of Life” Promoted By The Founding Fathers Who Wanted “Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness.” According to a video of Bill Cassidy obtained via the official Cassidy Press YouTube channel, “Everyday in Congress, I am guided by Louisiana values, not by those of Washington, D.C. There’s a reason the founders spoke of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; because it starts with defending and promoting a culture of life. For me as a doctor, this means prolonging life, and relieving pain. It violates this culture of life to inflict pain on the unborn. That’s why I am pro-life, and why I support pro-life legislation.” [Cassidy Press YouTube, 5/19/14] 

Health Savings Account Funding

VOTED TO BAR SOMEONE FROM USING THEIR HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT FUNDS TO PAY FOR AN ABORTION

2014: Cassidy Voted To Bar Someone From Using Their Health Savings Account Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In The Case Of Rape, Incest Or A Threat To The Mother’s Life. In April 2014, Cassidy voted for the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, their budget would “[i]mplement real patient-centered health care reform that would lower costs and improve access with the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act.” According to the RSC’s section-by-section description of the AHCRA, section 251 of the bill “[p]rohibits HSA funds from being used to pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened.” The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans’ FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Republican Study Committee, 9/17/13]

Louisiana Life March Rally

Cassidy Spoke At A Louisiana Life March Rally Against Abortion. According to the Times-Picayune, “A few thousand people attended the Louisiana Life March in Baton Rouge to rally against abortion on Saturday afternoon (Jan. 18). Activists walked through the city’s downtown before gathering in front of the steps of the Louisiana State Capitol for a rally. The theme of the event was ‘Adoption: The Power of Possibility’ and speakers urged people to put a children up for adoption rather than electing to have an abortion. They also pushed families to consider adopting a child or becoming a foster parent. Several politicians attended the event. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, spoke at the rally. State Rep. Lenar Whitney, R-Houma, former U.S. Rep. Anh ‘Joseph’ Cao, R-New Orleans, and U.S. Senate candidate Robert Maness were also present.” [Times-Picayune, 1/18/14]

Cassidy Said That No Matter The Circumstances Of A Pregnancy, A Woman Could Make It “Something Really Great.” According to a video of Cassidy speaking at an abortion rally obtained via the Times-Picayune, Cassidy said, “There will be many more generations because originally, that mother chose life. She’s the hero. And look around at yourselves; you’re the heroes too, because you choose life. You choose to encourage her. In her desperate situation, you will say, ‘There is an option, and there’s an option that is positive. And whatever the circumstances of the pregnancy, you can make it something really great.” [Times-Picayune, 1/18/14]

Minors

Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Made It A Crime To Transport A Minor To Another State To Get An Abortion. In February 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion ([would deem] such transporting to be a de facto abridgment of the right of a parent under any law in the minor’s state of residence that [required] parental involvement in the minor’s abortion decision). [Would make] an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. […] [Would impose] a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who [performed] or [induced] an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements. [Would require] such physician to give 24-hour actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor seeking an abortion, subject to certain exceptions.’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 732; Congressional Actions, 2/14/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 2/15/13]

“Partial Birth” Abortion

2007: Cassidy Voted To Ban Partial Birth Abortions. In June 2007, Cassidy voted for a Senate bill that, according to its Title on Legiscon, “Provides with respect to partial birth abortion. […] To enact R.S. 14:32.10 and R.S. 40:1299.35.17, and to repeal R.S. 14:32.9 and R.S. 40:1299.35.16, relative to partial birth abortion; to prohibit partial birth abortion; to provide for criminal penalties; to provide for a civil action for damages; to provide for a medical review of the conduct of the physician; to provide for definitions; to provide for an effective date; and to provide for related matters.’ The bill passed the Senate on 6/25/07 with a vote of 36 to 0. The bill passed the House on 6/26/07 with a vote of 104 to 0. The bill was signed by the Governor and became law. [HB 614, 7/12/07]

• The Bill Prohibited A Physician From Performing A Partial Birth Abortion, With Exceptions For Life Of The Mother. According to the Resume Digest for the legislation, “New law prohibits a physician from performing a partial birth abortion. Provides for an exception when the partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury. New law provides for criminal penalties including a fine of not less than $10,000 no more than $100,000, imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both.” [HB 614 Resume Digest, 7/12/07]
  
   
• Supporters Of The Bill Wanted Louisiana To Be Able To Pursue Doctors Who Violated The Law Without Relying On Federal Prosecutors. According to the Advocate, “The Legislature has sent to the governor its second bill this week that would ban a procedure some call ‘partial-birth’ abortion, complete with fines and jail time for the doctors who perform it. The activity comes in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in March that upheld a 2003 federal law banning ‘partial birth’ abortions. During the procedure a fetus’ legs and torso are pulled from the uterus and the skull is punctured. Supporters of making it a state crime say Louisiana needs its own ban so that it does not have to rely on federal prosecutors to pursue doctors who violate the law. Opponents say the state law is unnecessary.” [Advocate, 6/28/07]

Planned Parenthood Funding

2011: Cassidy Voted To Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood In The 2011 Continuing Appropriations Bill. In February 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill that would have, cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. According to Roll Call, “More than a dozen House Republicans confirmed Wednesday that their vote on any long-term continuing resolution could well hinge on whether it includes language to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which offers abortion services. […] Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), declined Wednesday to discuss how leadership is planning to deal with conservative concerns over abortion funding. ‘At this point, our position is [to support] H.R. 1, which includes those provisions,’ Steel said in a statement. ‘We’re still waiting to see a plan to cut spending and help create jobs from the Democrats who run Washington.’’ The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 189. The Senate extensively amended the legislation and passed the bill, but it was not taken up again by the House. [House Vote 147, 2/19/11; Roll Call, 3/10/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]

2011: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest, Or Life Of The Mother. In May 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ‘prohibit[ed] federal funding for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is endangered. It would [have] modif[ied] tax breaks given for health insurance coverage to exclude coverage for abortion, prohibit[ed] federal medical facilities from providing abortion services.’ The House passed the bill with a vote of 251 to 175. The Senate took no subsequent action. [House Vote 292, 5/4/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11]

• The Measure Also Allowed Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Services Based On Personal Beliefs. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill ‘establish[ed] ‘conscience protections’ for health care providers who object to providing abortion services.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11]

2009: Cassidy Voted To Bar Planned Parenthood From Receiving Federal Funding For Voluntary Family Planning And Related Health Services. In July 2009, Cassidy voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] bar[red] funds [in the underlying bill] from being available for Planned Parenthood for voluntary family planning.’ The vote was on a proposed amendment to the proposed Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Department appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 247. [House Vote 643, 7/24/09; Congressional Quarterly, 7/24/09] 

RU-486

2011: Cassidy Voted To Bar Funds In The 2012 Agricultural Appropriations Bill From Being Used For The Drug RU-486. In June 2011, Cassidy voted for an amendment to the 2012 agriculture appropriations bill which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “bar the use of funds in the bill for the abortion drug mifepristone, also known as RU-486.’ The House passed the amendment by a vote of 240 by 176. The bill was amended by the Senate, which removed the provision. [House Vote 445, 6/16/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2112; Congressional Quarterly, 6/16/11]

• Supporters Did Not Want Federal “Telemedicine” Funds Going To Planned Parenthood Or Other Health Care Providers Who Performed Abortions Using RU-486. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Steve King, (R-IA) said, “I am very concerned about the robo distribution of abortion pills in Iowa or anywhere else. […] Their response came back in the affirmative, that they had issued several grants to Planned Parenthood; and these funds, as near as we can determine, are being used to provide telemedicine for the robo abortions, robo Skype abortions as I’ve described. This amendment provides that none of the funds made available in this $15 million telemedicine line item that’s in this appropriations bill shall be used for the purpose of purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, procuring, or otherwise administering mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486.” [Congressional Record, 6/16/11]
• Opponents Said That Barring Funding For RU-486 Was Unnecessary And Was Aimed At Changing Policy Around A Woman’s Right To Choose. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) said, “I think what the gentleman is going to talk about is a legal drug in the United States. It’s been a legitimate drug in the United States after it met all of the rigorous FDA process in 1996 and has been available since 2000 in this country. I remember vigorous debates in this committee about the conditionality by which FDA would license this drug. It is legal and available in all 50 States in the United States, in Washington, DC, in Guam, and in Puerto Rico. It’s a prescription drug which is not available to the public through pharmacies. Instead, its distribution is restricted to specifically qualified licensed physicians. To use it, a woman must go to a doctor’s office. Whatever controversy surrounded the introduction of RU-486 in the United States was settled years ago, and there’s no reason for this amendment other than to stir up the controversy over the reproductive rights of women. I think by the gentleman’s comments, you can see that that’s what he’s trying to do. I would urge us all to oppose this amendment. And frankly it doesn’t have anything to do with USDA funds, because we don’t do telemedicine abortions.” [Congressional Record, 6/15/11]