Views On Abortion

Newly Elected speaker mike johnson views on abortion 

Johnson Has Given Several Interviews And Speeches Espousing Extreme Anti-Abortion Views

Johnson Repeatedly Voted Against Access To Birth Control And Issues Relating To Abortion

20-Week Abortion Ban

Health Exception

2017: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Allowing An Exception For The Health Of The Mother From A 20-Week Abortion Ban. In October 2017, Mike Johnson effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “add[ed] an exception to the 20-week abortion ban for abortions necessary to save the health of the pregnant woman.” The underlying legislation was a 20-week abortion ban. The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 187 to 238. [House Vote 548, 10/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]

Passage

2017: Mike Johnson Voted For The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Which Banned Abortion After 20-Weeks. In October 2017, Mike Johnson voted for legislation banning abortion after the fetus is 20-weeks old. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later and would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. It would provide exceptions for cases in which the woman’s life is in danger as well as for pregnancies that are a result of rape for pregnancies that are a result of rape against an adult woman, if the woman received counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. An exception would be provided for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor if the rape or incest had been previously reported to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The bill would require a second doctor trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present for abortions where the fetus has the ‘potential’ to survive outside the womb.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 237 to 189. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 549, 10/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]

• 99 Percent Of Abortions Were Before 21 Weeks And Those After Are Due To Complex Situations. According to Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances. For example, severe fetal anomalies and serious risks to the woman’s health — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.” [Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Accessed 10/11/17]

Abortion Access

Defense Department

2023: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted To Repeal A 2022 Memorandum Regarding Traveling For Reproductive Care. In September 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “motion to instruct conferees on the part of the House to disagree to section 716, which would repeal an October 2022 Defense Department memorandum concerning traveling for reproductive health care.” The vote was on a motion to instruct conferees. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 205 to 214. [House Vote 400, 9/20/23; Congressional Quarterly, 9/20/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2670]

Codifying Abortion Protections

2022: Mike Johnson Voted Against Codifying The Right To Receive Abortion Services And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting Abortion Restrictions. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would “statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 219-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 360, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296]

• The Bill Specified The Factors That Courts Could Consider When Determining Whether A Regulation Were To Limit Or Impede Access To Abortion And Required The Party Defending The Regulation To Prove That It Advances The Safety Of Abortion Or The Patient’s Health. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would specify factors that courts may consider to determine whether a requirement or limitation impedes access to abortion services, including whether it interferes with providers' ability to provide services; poses a risk to patients' health; is likely to delay or deter patients in accessing services or necessitate in-person visits that would not otherwise be required; is likely to result in a decreased availability of services in a state or region; is likely to result in increased costs of providing or obtaining services; or imposes penalties that are not imposed on other health care providers for comparable conduct. It would require a party defending a requirement or limitation to establish that it significantly advances the safety of abortion services or patient health and that such goals cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Authorized The Justice Department, Medical Providers, And Individuals And Entities To Sue In Federal Court Against Any Governmental Entity That Were To Implement Abortion Restrictions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize the Justice Department, health care providers and private individuals and entities to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for injunctive relief against any state or government official charged with implementing or enforcing a requirement or limitation challenged as a violation of rights established by the bill. It would authorize district courts to award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and to award costs of litigation to a prevailing plaintiff. It would require courts to ‘liberally construe’ provisions of the bill to effectuate its purposes.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• H.R. 8296 Was An Identical Bill To The Abortion Protections Bill Passed In September 2021 By The House, H.R. 3755, But Adds Findings Over The Dobbs Case That Overturned Roe V. Wade. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill is substantively identical to HR 3755, which the House passed in September 2021, but adds findings related to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Was Another Attempt To Codify Roe V. Wade After The Senate Failed To Advance The First Version Of The Bill In May 2022. According to The Washington Post, “One bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, would enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into law. The House already passed the bill last year, but it did not advance in a Senate vote in May. The House passed the bill, 219-210, prompting applause from Democrats in the chamber. All Republicans and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) voted against the measure.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• Republicans Falsely Mislabeled The Bill As The “Abortions On Demand Until Birth Act.” According to The Washington Post, “As further proof of their opposition to the measure, Republicans falsely renamed the legislation in their whip notice as the ‘Abortions on Demand until Birth Act’ — which is a misrepresentation of the bill — and repeated that claim on the House floor.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Establish The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Abortion Services And Their Patients The Right To Receive Them And Invalidate State Restrictions That Were Implemented After The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade. According to The New York Times, “A second measure, a version of which passed the House last year, would explicitly give health care providers the right to provide abortion services and their patients the right to obtain them, invalidating a variety of state restrictions that were enacted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade and ending the constitutional right to abortion. That second measure, the Women’s Health Protection Act, passed 219 to 210, also mainly along party lines, with one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, voting with Republicans.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Allow Abortions After Viability Only In Health- Or Life-Threatening Circumstances. According to The New York Times, “In reality, the Democratic bill allows abortions after viability only in circumstances when a doctor determines that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the patient’s life or health.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for the “Fischbach, R-Minn., motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 209-218. [House Vote 359, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Women's Health Protection Act (HR 8296).” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Women's Health Protection Act (HR 8296).” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208. [House Vote 303, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2021: Mike Johnson Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Protect The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit Restrictions On Abortion. In September 2021, Mike Johnson voted against the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-211. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill in February 2022. [House Vote 295, 9/24/21; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]

• The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions And Establish That Health Care Providers Have A Right To Provide Abortions And Individuals Have The Right To Receive An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions, Including Measures Restricting Abortions Before Fetal Viability And When The Patient’s Life Is At Risk, Measures Requiring Justification For Seeking An Abortion, And Measures Requiring Medical Personnel To Provide Inaccurate Information Or Unnecessary Medical Tests To Discourage Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient’s life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers’ ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient’s health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Prohibit Limitations That Hinder Access To Abortion Services And Harassment Towards Abortion Providers And Facilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Codify Factors That Limit Abortion Access In Court, Including Restrictions That Impede Providers’ Abilities From Providing Abortions, Limitations That Risk The Health Of Patients, Restrictions On The Availability And Number Of Facilities, Increasing Abortion Costs, And Imposing Penalties Not Applicable To Other Health Care Providers. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would specify factors that courts may consider to determine whether a requirement or limitation impedes access to abortion services, including whether it interferes with providers’ ability to provide services; poses a risk to patients’ health; is likely to delay or deter patients in accessing services or necessitate in-person visits that would not otherwise be required; is likely to result in a decreased availability of services in a state or region; is likely to result in increased costs of providing or obtaining services; or imposes penalties that are not imposed on other health care providers for comparable conduct.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Require Defendants Of Abortion Limitations To Demonstrate That The Limitation Would Advance Abortion Services And Why A Less Restrictive Measure Would Be Ineffective. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would require a party defending a requirement or limitation to establish that it significantly advances the safety of abortion services or patient health and that such goals cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Allow The Department Of Justice, Health Care Providers And Individuals To Sue States Or Governmental Officials For Imposing Any Abortion Limitations. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize the Justice Department, health care providers and private individuals and entities to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for injunctive relief against any state or government official charged with implementing or enforcing a requirement or limitation challenged as a violation of rights established by the bill.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Authorize District Courts To Grant Equitable Relief And Award Costs Of Litigation To The Prevailing Plaintiff In Lawsuits Pertaining To Abortion Access Restrictions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize district courts to award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and to award costs of litigation to a prevailing plaintiff. It would require courts to ‘liberally construe’ provisions of the bill to effectuate its purposes.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Protect An Individuals’ Right To An Abortion And Put In Statute Health Care Providers’ Right To Provide Abortions Before Fetal Viability Without Limitations Imposed By States. According to NPR, “The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect a person’s ability to decide to continue or end a pregnancy and would enshrine into law health care providers’ ability to offer abortion services ‘prior to fetal viability’ without restrictions imposed by individual states, like requiring special admitting privileges for providers or imposing waiting periods.” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Establish A Statutory Right To Provide Abortions And A Corresponding Right For Patients To Receive Abortions, Free From Restrictions Specific To Abortion Facilities That Hinder Access. According to Act For Women, “WHPA would create a statutory right for health care providers to provide abortion care, and a corresponding right for their patients to receive that care, free from medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion and impede access.” [Act For Women, Accessed on 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access Even If The Supreme Court Were To Rule To Weaken Abortion Rights. According to Vox, “The proposed federal law would provide sweeping protections that ensure that people have abortion access even if the Supreme Court rules to weaken reproductive rights. “ [Vox, 2/28/22]
• While The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access, The Bill Would Not Supersede Laws Regarding Insurance Coverage For Abortions. According to Vox, “It wouldn’t, however, supersede laws addressing insurance coverage for abortions.” [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Measure Would Prohibit Restrictions Imposed By States, Including Mandatory Waiting Periods And Limitation On When A Pregnancy Can Be Terminated. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would prohibit some state-level restrictions such as bans on mandatory waiting periods and limits on when during pregnancy an abortion can be performed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Ban Restrictions On Abortions After Fetal Viability When The Pregnant Individual’s Life Is At Risk. According to NPR, “It also would prohibit restrictions on abortion after fetal viability ‘when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.’” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• Republicans Argued The Bill Was Too Extreme For Limiting States’ Abilities To Regulate Abortions. According to NPR, “Republicans argued that the bill goes too far, essentially limiting a state’s ability to regulate or restrict abortions.” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• Roe V. Wade Protected The Right To An Abortion Before Fetal Viability, Typically 23 Or 24 Weeks. According to Reuters, “The right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, typically around 23 or 24 weeks, has been protected under the Constitution since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Forbid Unnecessary Restrictions On Abortion, Including Forced Waiting Periods, Counseling And Ultrasounds. According to Act For Women, “WHPA protects the right to access abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on abortion—including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds.” [Act For Women, Accessed on 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Supersede State Laws Restricting Abortions And Effectively Neutralize State Laws In 19 States That Have Hindered Abortion Access Or Almost Banned Abortion. According to Vox, “The Women’s Health Protection Act would enshrine into federal law the right to access and perform an abortion, and it would supersede state laws on the issue. That’s notable because it would effectively neutralize laws in 19 states that have sought to severely curb access to abortion or ban it altogether.” [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Forbid Six-Week And 20-Week Abortion Bans. According to Vox, “If passed, the Women’s Health Protection Act would bar six-week and 20-week bans on abortions. “ [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Prevent “Medically Unnecessary” Abortion Restrictions, Including Mandatory Waiting Periods, Counseling, Telemedicine Bans, And Several Policies That Have Forced The Closure Of Abortion Clinics. According to The Washington Post, “The bill would eliminate a list of what proponents describe as ‘medically unnecessary’ antiabortion restrictions, including mandatory waiting periods, antiabortion counseling, telemedicine bans and various regulations on the layout, structure and staffing policies at abortion clinics, which have forced many clinics to shutter.” [The Washington Post, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Ensure Health Care Providers Have The Right To Provide Abortions Without Limitations, Including Restrictions Prior To Fetal Viability. According to Reuters, “The Women’s Health Protection Act, co-sponsored by 48 Senate Democrats, states that healthcare providers should be able to provide abortions without a number of barriers – including restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability, which many states currently have in place.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]
• The U.S. Attorney General Would Be Able To Sue Any State Or Government Official For Imposing Abortion Restrictions. According to Reuters, “It states that the U.S. Attorney General can sue any state or government official who violates the terms of the law.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]

Defense Department Reproductive Service Reimbursement Policy

2023: Mike Johnson Voted To Prohibit The Use Of VA Funding To Provide Abortions Or Allow Abortion Counseling. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, which would “also prohibit the use of the bill's funds to provide abortions, to implement a September 2022 VA rule that allows abortion counseling and establishes exceptions for the prohibition on abortions in the medical benefits package for veterans and civilian beneficiaries, to provide surgical procedures or hormone therapies for gender-affirming care, and to fly or display a flag over a VA facility or national cemetery that is not the U.S. flag, military-related or another government jurisdiction” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 211, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 380, 7/27/23; Congressional Quarterly, 7/27/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4366]

• The Bill Would Prevent VA Medical Centers From Performing Abortions. According to The Hill, “But the administration did not hold back its criticism of policies in the bill it said would prevent VA medical centers from being able to perform abortions or ‘provide hormone therapies for the purpose of gender-affirming care.’” [The Hill, 7/27/23]

2023: Mike Johnson Voted To Repeal A 2022 Defense Department Policy Regarding Reproductive Health Care And Prohibit The DoD From Paying For Abortion Services. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which would “repeal a 2022 Defense Department memorandum regarding access to reproductive health care and prohibit the department from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 328, 7/14/23; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2670]

• The Provision Of The FY 2024 NDAA Would Reverse A DoD Policy That Reimburses Expenses For Military Members Who Traveled For Abortion Services. According to Reuters, “The House voted 221 to 213 for an amendment that would reverse the Defense Department's policy of reimbursing expenses for service members who travel to obtain an abortion.” [Reuters, 7/14/23]
• The Abortion Reimbursement Policy Sought To Help Military Members In Need Of Abortion Services Who Were Stationed In States With Abortion Bans. According to Reuters, “The Pentagon travel reimbursement policy is aimed at helping those in the military or family members who are seeking an abortion but stationed in states that have outlawed it.” [Reuters, 7/14/23]

2023: Mike Johnson Voted For An Amendment That Would Repeal A Reproductive Health Care Policy In The Defense Department And Prohibit The Department From Paying For Abortion Services. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which would “repeal a 2022 Defense Department memorandum regarding access to reproductive health care and prohibit the department from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 221 to 213. [House Vote 300, 7/13/23; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2670; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 222]

• The Amendment Would Rescind A DoD Policy That Reimburses Military Members Who Had To Travel To Access Reproductive Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The move came after the House earlier Thursday adopted an amendment from Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, to rescind a Defense Department policy that reimburses servicemembers who must travel to obtain reproductive health care. Democrats have promised to vote en masse against the bill if that provision is included.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/23]

Interstate Travel For Abortion Services

2022: Mike Johnson Voted Against Prohibiting Individuals Acting Under State Law From Restricting An Individual’s Access To Out-Of-State Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting The Restriction Of Interstate Movement Against Any FDA-Approved Abortion Drug. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, which would “prohibit individuals from interfering with patients' ability to access to abortion services in another state where the services are legal. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from preventing, restricting or retaliating against health care providers' ability to provide abortion services that are legal in the provider's state to patients who do not reside in that state; a person's ability to assist in providing such services; or a person's ability to travel or assist another person traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. It would also prohibit individuals from preventing, restricting or retaliating against the interstate movement of any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a pregnancy.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 223-205, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 362, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297]

• The Bill Would Permit The U.S. Attorney General Or A Harmed Individual To Sue In Federal Court Against An Individual Who Violates The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates the prohibitions.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Reaffirm The Right For An Individual Seeking Abortion Services To Travel Across State Lines Without Restrictions. According to The Washington Post, “Another bill, the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, would reaffirm the right for someone seeking an abortion to travel freely across state lines. The House passed that measure, 223-205, with three Republicans — Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — joining all Democrats in backing the bill.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher (D) From Texas: Prohibiting Travel Restrictions For Abortion Access Was Consistent With The Constitutional Right To Interstate Travel. According to The New York Times, “Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Democrat of Texas, said her bill prohibiting states from enacting or enforcing laws restricting travel to obtain an abortion was consistent with the constitutional right to interstate travel.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for the “Mike Johnson, R-La., motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 209-219. [House Vote 361, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act (HR 8297).” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Changing The Bill’s Title From The “Ensuring Access To Abortion Act Of 2022” To The “Ensuring Women’s Right To Reproductive Freedom Act.” In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson effectively voted against the manager’s amendment to the bill that would “change the title of the bill from the ‘Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022’ to the ‘Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.’” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204, thus the amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act (HR 8297).” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208. [House Vote 303, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

Anti-Abortion Entities

Condemning Violence Against Pro-Life Facilities And Groups

2023: Mike Johnson Voted For A Resolution That Condemned Vandalism And Violence Against Anti-Abortion Organizations, Recognized “The Sanctity Of Life,” And Called On The Biden Administration To Protect The Rights Of Pro-Life Entities. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for a concurrent resolution that would “state that Congress condemns attacks of vandalism, violence and destruction against pro-life facilities, groups and churches and recognizes ‘the sanctity of life and the important role that [such entities] play in supporting pregnant women, infants and families.’ It would also call on the Biden administration to use all appropriate law enforcement authorities to protect the rights of such entities.” The vote was on passage. The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 222-209. [House Vote 30, 1/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 3]

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Passage

2023: Mike Johnson Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Which Would Mandate Health Care Workers To Provide Proper Medical Care To An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would “require health care practitioners to provide the same care to a child that is ‘born alive’ after an abortion or attempted abortion as they would for a child born at the same gestational age and to ensure the child is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital; require hospital and clinic practitioners and employees to report any knowledge of failures to provide such care; and impose criminal fines and penalties for failures to meet these requirements. It would state that a child born alive under these conditions is a legal person under U.S. law, entitled to the protections of U.S. law, and it would specifically make any act that kills or attempts to kill such a child punishable as murder or attempted murder. The bill would also prohibit the prosecution of the mother of a child born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion and permit such mothers to seek relief through civil action against any person who violates the bill’s requirements, including monetary and punitive damages.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 29, 1/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]

• Republicans Argued The Bill Would Enhance Protections For An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Republicans say the bill (HR 26) from Scalise, and Reps. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., and Kat Cammack R-Fla., would increase protections for an infant born after an attempted abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23]
• Under The Bill, Any Violations By Health Care Workers Could Be Punished With Fines Or Up To Five Years In Prison But Mothers Would Be Protected From Any Penalties Or Prosecution. According to CNN, “Under the bill, health providers who fail to comply with the requirements for care could face fines or up to five years in prison. The bill would not impose penalties on the mother and would grant the mother protection from any kind of prosecution.” [CNN, 1/12/23]
• Opponents Of The Bill Argued It Would Restrict Abortion Access By Threatening Medical Workers And Emphasized That It Was Already Illegal To Intentionally Kill An Infant That Was Born Alive. According to CNN, “Opponents have argued that such measures restrict abortion access by threatening health care providers. It is already considered homicide in the US to intentionally kill an infant that is born alive.” [CNN, 1/12/23]
• The Bill Would Mandate For Infants That Survived Failed Abortions To Be Provided The Equal Medical Care Provided To Other Babies Born Prematurely And Require The Infant To Be Transported To A Hospital. According to The Hill, “The bill, which House Republicans vowed to bring up even before they clinched the majority, would mandate that an infant born alive after an attempted abortion receives the same degree of care that any other child born prematurely would receive. The measure also requires that the infant is taken to a hospital. And it threatens providers who don’t comply with a fine or up to five years in prison.” [The Hill, 1/11/23]
• Passage Of The Legislation Comes After The U.S. Supreme Court Struck Down Roe V. Wade In June 2022 And After Almost 50 Years Since The Roe V. Wade Ruling. According to The Hill, “House passage of the bill comes days before the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which made access to abortion a constitutional right. The justices struck down that decision in June.” [The Hill, 1/11/23]

2023: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Which Would Mandate Health Care Workers To Provide Proper Medical Care To An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “motion to recommit the bill that would require medical professionals to provide medical care for children who are born alive during an attempted abortion procedure to the House Judiciary Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 212-219. [House Vote 28, 1/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]

2018: Mike Johnson Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Which Required Health Care Workers Care For An Infant Born Instead Of Aborted Resultant From A Failed Abortion. In January 2018, Mike Johnson voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require[d] health care practitioners to provide care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion that is equivalent to the care they would provide to any other infant born at the same gestational age. It would [have] impose[d] criminal fines, and penalties of up to five years in prison, for failure to do so, and would provide for a patient in such circumstances to file a lawsuit against the health care provider for certain monetary and punitive damages. The bill would [have] require[d] hospital and clinic practitioners and employees to report any knowledge of failures to provide such care to the appropriate state or federal law enforcement agency, and would [have] permit[ted] prosecution of individuals who fail to do so.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 241 to 183. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 36, 1/19/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/19/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4712]

Conscience Clause

Enforcement

2019: Mike Johnson Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Would Allow DHHS To Enforce Conscientious Objections Protections Related To Abortion. In June 2019, Mike Johnson voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “strike from the bill a provision prohibiting funds authorized by the bill to be used to enforce a May 2019 Health and Human Services Department rule regarding enforcement of conscientious objection protections related to abortion and other health provisions under HHS programs.” The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 192-230. [House Vote 266, 6/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]

• The Amendment Supported A Trump Administration Rule That Allowed Health Care Workers To Object To Medical Procedures Such As Birth Control For Religious Purposes. According to NPR, “The rule finalized Thursday allows health care workers who have a ‘religious or conscience’ objection to medical procedures such as birth control or sterilization to refuse to participate in those procedures, even in a tangential way. ‘This rule allows anyone from a doctor to a receptionist to entities like hospitals and pharmacies to deny a patient critical — and sometimes lifesaving — care,’ said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, in a statement.” [NPR, 5/2/19]
• ACLU: The Rule “Offers Health Care Providers Broad Leeway To Refuse Women Reproductive Care.” According to NPR, “Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, says the rule offers health care providers broad leeway to refuse women reproductive care, such as an emergency abortion to protect the life or health of the mother, if they claim the procedure offends their conscience. The rule protects health care workers who have indirect involvement in such procedures, as long as their roles have an ‘articulable connection’ to a procedure such as abortion, sterilization or even administration of birth control.” [NPR, 5/2/19]

Contraception

Codifying Access To Contraceptives

2022: Mike Johnson Voted Against Codifying The Right To Access Contraceptives And The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Contraceptives To Their Patients. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would “protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 228-195, thus the bill was sent to Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 385, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]

• The Bill Was A Resulted From The U.S. Supreme Court’s Overturn Of Roe V. Wade And Concerns That The Court May Revisit Same-Sex Marriage And The Right To Contraception. According to The New York Times, “House Democratic leaders opted to move forward with the bill after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion rights raised worries about the prospect that the justices might revisit cases that affirmed same-sex marriage rights and the right to contraception. The debate in Congress thrust the issue into the midterm election campaign, where Democrats are eager to draw a distinction between their party’s support for L.G.B.T.Q. rights and opposition by many Republicans.” [New York Times, 7/19/22]
• The Bill Would Establish The Federal Right For Contraception Access And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Contraceptives. According to Reuters, “The bill would create a federal right for people to access contraceptives and for doctors and pharmacists to provide them. Contraceptives are used by 88% of U.S. women of childbearing age who are not trying to get pregnant, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group.” [Reuters, 7/21/22]
• Although None Have Passed, Several State Legislatures Have Introduced Legislation To Restrict Contraceptive Access And 12 States Currently Permit Health Care Providers To Refuse To Prescribe Contraception. According to Reuters, “Some state legislatures have introduced bills to restrict access to contraceptives, though they have not passed. In addition, 12 states allow health providers to refuse contraception, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” [Reuters, 7/21/22]
• The Bill Would Protect Oral And Emergency Contraceptives, Intrauterine Devices And Condoms. According to The Hill, “Contraceptives protected under the legislation include oral and emergency medications, intrauterine devices and condoms.” [The Hill, 7/21/22]
• The Bill Would Allow The U.S. Attorney General, Health Care Providers And Injured Individuals To Sue States That Violate The Right To Contraception Access. According to The Hill, “Additionally, the bill authorizes the attorney general, health care providers and other individuals to take civil action against any states that violate the provisions of the bill.” [The Hill, 7/21/22]
• Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Was Too Broad And Could Violate Religious Liberty Protections. According to Congressional Quarterly, “But some House Republicans who opposed the contraception bill, sponsored by Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., said they worried the legislation was too broad and could limit protections under a religious liberty law known as the Religious Restoration Freedom Act of 1993. They also worried that the bill could violate other federal and state moral protection laws.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
• Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Would Increase Funding For Abortion Providers And That The Right To Contraception Would Be Interpreted To Protect Medication Abortion Drugs. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Other Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill would increase funds for abortion providers and be interpreted to cover the right to medication abortion drugs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
• Congressman Frank Pallone (D) Clarified That The Bill Defined Contraceptives As FDA-Regulated Products And Emphasized That The Bill Would Not Prevent The FDA From Removing Unsafe Products. According to Congressional Quarterly, “But House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., disagreed with that interpretation. ‘This bill defines contraceptives as those legally marked under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,’ said Pallone, referring to the 1938 law that granted FDA authority. ‘Nothing prevents FDA to [sic] remove unsafe products from the market.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted for the “Hinson, R-Iowa, motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 190-234. [House Vote 384, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Included Biological Products And FDA-Regulated Products In The Definition Of “Contraceptives,” Specified That “Health Care Providers” Were Authorized Providers, And Clarified That The Contraception Access Bill Did Not Sanction Forced Sterilization. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson effectively voted against the management’s amendment, which would “specify that the bill's definition of ‘contraceptive’ includes biological products and is limited to products legally marketed under existing Food and Drug Administration regulations; clarify the bill's definition of ‘health care provider’ to state that providers must be authorized by the state to provide health care services; specify that the bill may not be construed to sanction sterilization procedures without a patient's informed consent; and make technical changes.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200, thus the manager’s amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 219-199. [House Vote 365, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]

Veteran Access

2021: Mike Johnson Was Absent During The Vote On Prohibiting Copayments For Contraceptives Covered By Health Insurance Plans Without A Cost-Sharing Requirement For Veterans. In June 2021, Mike Johnson missed a vote on the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit the Veterans Affairs Department from requiring copayments from a veteran for any contraceptive items that are required to be covered by health insurance plans without a cost-sharing requirement.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 245-181, after initially failing to meet 2/3 of the vote on June 15th, 2021. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 184, 6/24/21; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 239]

Family Planning

Funding

2021: Mike Johnson Voted Against Providing $4.6 Billion for Global Health Programs, Including $760 Million For Family Planning And Reproductive Health Programs. In July 2021, Mike Johnson voted against the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide $4.6 billion for global health programs, including $760 million for family planning and reproductive health programs. It would provide over $3 billion to address climate change and other environmental issues, including $1.6 billion for a multilateral Green Climate Fund to help developing countries address climate change, $269 million for renewable energy programs, and $125 million to combat wildlife trafficking.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-212, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The bill ultimately became law. [House Vote 243, 7/28/21; Congressional Quarterly, 7/28/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4373]

Service Members

2019: Mike Johnson Voted Against Providing Family Planning Services For Members Of The Armed Forces. In July 2019, Mike Johnson voted against an amendment to the House FY 2020 NDAA that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require the Defense Department, in consultation with the Coast Guard, to establish a uniform standard curriculum to be used in education programs on family planning for all members of the Armed Forces.” The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 231-199. [House Vote 440, 7/11/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.510; Congressional Actions, H.R.2500]

• Planned Parenthood Included This Amendment On Their Congressional Scorecard, As It “Ensures Service Members Are Provided The Information They Need To Make Informed Sexual And Reproductive Health Decisions. According to Planned Parenthood, “Family planning is one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. The availability of family planning services allows individuals to achieve desired birth spacing and family size, and contributes to improved health outcomes for infants, children, women, and families. Congresswoman Speier’s amendment works to ensure service members are provided the information they need to make informed sexual and reproductive health decisions, and that they are provided these resources during the first year of service. [Planned Parenthood, Accessed 2/6/20]

Federal Funding

2019: Mike Johnson Voted For Blocking Funding For Family Planning And Reproductive Health Through The USAID. In June 2019, Mike Johnson voted for an amendment to the FY 2020 minibus that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “strike from the bill a provision allocating $750 million for family planning and reproductive health programs, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity, from funding provided by the bill for U.S. Agency for International Development global health programs.” The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188-225. [House Vote 324, 6/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 340; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]

• Planned Parenthood Included This Amendment On Their Congressional Scorecard, As It Jeopardized “Critical And Lifesaving International Family Planning And Reproductive Health Programs. ” According to Planned Parenthood, “Over 24 million women receive contraceptives from U.S. supported international family planning programs based on FY 2019 funding levels - and millions more stand to gain access with the designated $750 million funding level. In FY 2019, the U.S. invested $607.5 million in international family planning and reproductive health, including $32.5 million for UNFPA. The Lesko amendment would jeopardize these critical and lifesaving international family planning and reproductive health programs by cutting much needed funding to keep the programs running. We cannot improve women’s health, address the unacceptably high maternal mortality rate, and support healthy families globally, without robust investments in international family planning. This spending will ensure women can access family planning counseling and the full range of contraceptive options that they want.” [Planned Parenthood, Accessed 2/6/20]

2019: Mike Johnson Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Would Make It More Difficult For Federally Funded Facilities To Provide Abortion Services. In June 2019, Mike Johnson voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “strike from the bill a provision requiring the Health and Human Services Department to administer certain family planning program grants under statutory frameworks in effect as of January 18, 2017. The provision that would be struck down would effectively block implementation of a March 2019 HHS rule related to grants for facilities providing abortions.” The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191-231. [House Vote 267, 6/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 275; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]

• The Amendment Would Have Upheld A Trump Administration Rule That Aimed To Hinder Planned Parenthood From Providing Abortion Services. According to The Atlantic, “In late February, the Trump administration dropped a new rule that has alarmed doctors’ groups and brought conservatives closer to achieving their long quest to defund Planned Parenthood. Clinics that receive funds from the federal family-planning grant program Title X will no longer be able to perform abortions in the same space where they see other patients. Abortion and other health-care services will be required to be physically and financially separate entities. Title X participants will also no longer be able to refer patients to abortion providers, though they can mention abortion to their patients. About 20 percent of Title X providers would potentially have to renovate their clinics to meet the new guidelines, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will likely cost each of these providers $20,000 to $40,000 to come into compliance with the physical-separation element of the new rule.” [The Atlantic, 3/5/19]
• The Rule Would Have Made It More Difficult For Poor Women To Access Medical Services Unrelated To Abortions. According to the Atlantic, “Such a measure might conjure images of scores of Planned Parenthood clinics suddenly closing their doors. But the impacts of the rule are likely to be more subtle, and to mostly affect poor women’s access to medical services unrelated to abortions.” [The Atlantic, 3/5/19]

Permanently Banning Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Or Abortion Coverage

2017: Mike Johnson Voted To Permanently Ban Federal Funding For Abortion Services. In January 2017, Mike Johnson voted for codifying the Hyde Amendment. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would permanently prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or health insurance plans that include abortion coverage. It also would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its own local funds to provide or pay for abortions. Individuals and small businesses also could not receive tax credits under the 2010 health care law related to purchases of health insurance plans that include abortion coverage. The bill would require the Office of Personnel Management to ensure that, starting in 2018, no multistate qualified health plan offered in a state insurance exchange provides coverage that includes abortion. The provisions would not apply to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or to situations where the woman would die unless an abortion is performed.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 183. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 65, 1/24/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]

• Legislation Would Essentially Codify The Hyde Amendment. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Even if the bill is signed into law, the current status quo won't substantially change. Similar language restricting abortion funding, known as the Hyde Amendment, has been included in annual spending bills since 1976. It says that no appropriated funds can be used for abortions or for health plans that include abortion coverage except for pregnancies caused by rape or incest or if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17]
• Legislation Would Prevent Refundable Tax Credits To Be Used For Health Insurers That Provide Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “However, the bill would go further than the Hyde Amendment by trying to impose burdens on insurance companies or individuals who use private money to pay for abortions. For instance, it would disallow the use of refundable tax credits and cost sharing-reductions for health insurers and small employers that provide abortion coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17]

Reaffirming FDA Approval Authority

2022: Mike Johnson Effectively Voted Against Reaffirming The Preemption Of The FDA’s Authority Regarding Reproductive Health Product Approvals Over State Or Local Regulations That Restrict Reproductive Health Products. In December 2022, according to the Congressional Quarterly, Mike Johnson voted against the “automatic agreement to […] a resolution (H Res 1434) that would reaffirm that the Food and Drug Administration’s authorities to approve or authorize reproductive health products have a preemptive effect with respect to any state or local laws that inhibit access to or use of any reproductive health product.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule and automatic agreement to the resolution. The House adopted the rule and adopted the resolution by a vote of 216 – 193. [House Vote 531, 12/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 12/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1529; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1434]

Planned Parenthood

Funding

2019: Mike Johnson Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Prohibited The Convening Of An Ethics Advisory Board On Research Projects That Use Human Fetal Tissue. In June 2019, Mike Johnson voted against an amendment to the FY 2020 minibus that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit use of funds made available by the bill to convene an ethics advisory board on research grants and projects that propose the use of human fetal tissue.” The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 225-193. [House Vote 321, 6/13/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 338; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]

2017: Mike Johnson Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Effectively Defunding Planned Parenthood. In October 2017, Mike Johnson voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]

• Budget Called For Defunding Abortion Providers. According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2018 Budget, “Prohibit Federal Funds from Going to Entities that Provide Abortions The federal government should not fund entities that provide abortion services. This budget ensures that no taxpayer dollars flow to entities that provide abortions.” [Republican Study Committee, Accessed 10/17/17]

2017: Mike Johnson Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Effectively Defunding Planned Parenthood. In October 2017, Mike Johnson voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]

• Budget Called For Eliminating All Title X Funding For Abortion Providers. According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2018 Budget, “Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding Title X, or the family planning federal grant program, provides abortion providers with federal funds to terminate pregnancies and end the lives of thousands of innocent babies. This money has been used by abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, to not only underwrite the abortion industry, but it has also been used in support of organizations that dismember and sell fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Title X grants, which are intended to fund valuable health services for low-income women, but instead are used by abortion providers to put the safety of women and their unborn babies in danger.376 Eliminating Title X would save $286 million per year.” [Republican Study Committee, Accessed 10/17/17]

2017: Mike Johnson Voted For The House GOP’s FY 2018 Omnibus That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In September 2017, Mike Johnson voted for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill that. According to The Hill, “The House on Thursday completed its work on the annual appropriations bills for 2018, ahead of expected negotiations at the end of this year to keep the government funded. By a vote of 211-198, the House passed a $1.2 trillion package of spending bills to fund wide swaths of the federal government, ranging from the Department of Homeland Security to the Environmental Protection Agency. […] The package included eight new bills, plus four previously passed appropriations bills that advanced through the House in July. Regular order for appropriations typically involved passing each of the bills individually, not in groups of 4 or 8. […] Together, the bills appropriate $621.5 billion for defense spending and $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. It also devotes another $87 billion in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding, which does not count toward budget cuts. Of that, $75 billion went to defense, $12 billion to nondefense.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 211 to 198. The Senate took no substantive action on the overall legislation. [House Vote 528, 9/14/17; The Hill, 9/14/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]

• Legislation Defunded Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Finally, the measure prohibits funding for Planned Parenthood and HHS Title X family planning programs; prohibits the use of funds to administer or further implement the 2010 health care overhaul (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), including by prohibiting the funding of ACA navigators; and it includes the text of the Conscience Protection Act, which prohibits all levels of government from penalizing, retaliating against or otherwise discriminating against a health care provider because the provider does not provide or sponsor abortion coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/8/17]

2017: Mike Johnson Voted For The American Health Care Act That Would Have In Part Prohibited Federal Funding To Planned Parenthood. In May 2017, Mike Johnson voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have “prohibit[ed] federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds.” The overall legislation would have in part, also according to Congressional Quarterly, “ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law’s joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. […] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]

2017: Mike Johnson Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Effectively Withheld Title X Funds To States That Restrict Title X Funds To Planned Parenthood. In February 2017, Mike Johnson voted for disapproving the HHS rule related to Title X funding compliance via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) on Dec. 19, 2016, that modifies eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services to specify that states and other entities awarding funds cannot prohibit a health care provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services (which effectively threatens to withhold Title X money from states that restrict participation by Planned Parenthood). The measure provides that the rule (formally titled Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients) would have no force or effect.” The vote was on the resolution. The House adopted the legislation by a vote of 230 to 188. The legislation later became law. [House Vote 99, 2/16/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 43]

• HHS Rule Required That States Can Only Deny Funding For A Group Based On Its Ability To Provide Title X Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, “On Dec. 19, 2016, HHS finalized a rule modifying eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services, which specified that no state or other recipient distributing funds can prohibit an entity from participating and receiving funds for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services. If states or other entities are found to not be in compliance, HHS could discontinue its funding, subject to administrative appeals and a recoupment and re-awarding of funds. The rule effectively threatens to withhold Title X funds from states that have restrictions against participation by Planned Parenthood. The final rule became effective on Jan. 18, 2017.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Some States Have Attempted To Defund A Portion Of Planned Parenthood Funding By Denying Funds Through Title X. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Within the past few years, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain providers under the Title X program — most prominently, Planned Parenthood. HHS officials in the Obama administration argued that these actions were motivated by politics and not the provider's ability to provide Title X services, noting that the restrictions caused limitations in the geographic distribution of services. Some states have implemented a tiered approach to distribute Title X funds that gives preference to comprehensive primary care providers or community health centers, while others have explicitly prohibited specific providers from being eligible to receive Title X funds. Litigation concerning these restrictions has led to inconsistency across states in how Title X funds are distributed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Family Planning Is The Only Federal Grant Program Dedicated To Family Planning; Program Helps About 4 Million People Annually, Including Through Pregnancy Testing And STD Screening. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Title X Family Planning Program within the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) was enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act and remains the only federal program focused solely on providing family planning services. An estimated 4 million individuals each year receive services through thousands of Title X-funded health centers across the country, including contraceptive services, pregnancy testing and counseling, preconception health services, screening for sexually transmitted diseases and certain cancer screenings.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Funds Cannot Be Used To Fund Abortion, But Organizations That Provide Abortion Services Can Receive Funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Current law bars the use of Title X funds for abortion, but it allows states that receive grants to award funds to nonprofits and other entities to serve as providers for the covered family planning services. In some states, Title X service providers include members of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., a network of clinics that provide contraception and preventive health care for women but which is also the largest provider of abortion services in the nation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Planned Parenthood Receives About $60 Million Annually From Title X Out Of $450 Million Annually From The Federal Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, “For years, abortion opponents have been trying to eliminate or restrict federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The organization receives roughly $450 million in federal funds each year, with $390 million coming from Medicaid reimbursements and $60 million coming from Title X.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]

Despite His Votes Claiming To Oppose Birth Control And Abortion, Johnson Refused To Condemn ICE For Forced Hysterectomies

Condemning ICE For Forced Hysterectomies

2020: Mike Johnson Voted Against Condemning ICE For Referring Detainees For Hysterectomies And Other Unnecessary Invasive Gynecological Procedures. In October 2020, Mike Johnson voted against a resolution that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “express that the House of Representatives condemns the performance of unwanted and unnecessary medical procedures on individuals without their full, informed consent -- particularly with regard to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Ga. It would express that ‘everyone deserves to control their own reproductive choices and make informed choices about their bodies’ and that further accountability and transparency is necessary to protect people in custody of ICE. The resolution would call on the Homeland Security Department to pause the removal of individuals who experienced any medical procedure at the Irwin County Detention Center; allow individuals who may have experienced an unnecessary or nonconsensual procedure to have immediate access to appropriate medical treatment; comply with investigation and records requests related to the detention center; ensure that impacted individuals are able to participate in investigations; and hold individuals involved accountable.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 232-157. [House Vote 217, 10/2/20; Congressional Quarterly, 10/2/20; Congressional Actions, H.Res 1153]

• The Resolution Comes After Allegations That Detainees At The Irwin County Detention Center Received Hysterectomies And Other Gynecological Procedures Without Fully Understanding Or Consenting To Them. According to the New York Times, “The Department of Homeland Security is investigating allegations that immigrant women detained at a privately run detention center in Georgia underwent gynecological procedures without fully understanding or consenting to them. […] The complaint details medical procedures ordered or undertaken by a physician who has treated patients detained at the Irwin County Detention Center, which is run by a private company, LaSalle Corrections, On Ocilla, Ga. The nurse, Dawn Wooten, claims in the complaint that several women detained at the facility told her their uteruses had been removed without their consent.” [New York Times, 9/16/20]