¶ Bill Cassidy On Abortion
Highlights:
- Bill Cassidy opposed exceptions to abortion bans for survivors of rape or incest.
- Cassidy backed abortion bans without exemptions for survivors of rape or incest.
- Bill Cassidy supported overturning Roe v. Wade.
- Cassidy celebrated the demise of Roe v. Wade.
- Cassidy effectively voted against codifying the right to abortion care into law.
- Bill Cassidy effectively voted to ban abortion nationally after 20 weeks and penalize doctors who perform them.
- Bill Cassidy opposed federal funding for abortion care.
- Cassidy said he opposed using tax dollars for things that may violate another person’s values.
- Cassidy repeatedly voted in support of the Hyde Amendment.
- Cassidy effectively voted to block the use of Zika funding for abortion care.
- Bill Cassidy opposed federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
- Cassidy supported efforts to prohibit Title X funds from going to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
- Cassidy pushed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act that would have defunded Planned Parenthood.
- Bill Cassidy dismissed concerns that medication abortion was under threat despite voting to bar some federal funds from being used on medication abortion.
- Bill Cassidy received praise, endorsements, and campaign support from anti-abortion groups, including National Right to Life and SBA Pro-Life America.
- Bill Cassidy supported legislation to allow health care providers to refuse to provide abortion care.
- Cassidy voted to potentially allow health care providers to refuse to perform an abortion in cases where it could save a person’s life.
- Bill Cassidy co-sponsored legislation to restrict access to abortion care for minors.
- Bill Cassidy supported efforts to curb access to contraception.
- Cassidy supported the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision restricting access to contraception.
- Bill Cassidy voted to restrict people from using their health savings account funds to pay for an abortion.
- Bill Cassidy voted to block federal funds for medical school education to be used to provide training on abortion.
- Bill Cassidy voted to create criminal penalties for sex-selective abortions.
- Bill Cassidy voted to prohibit D.C. from using locally raised money for abortion care.
- Bill Cassidy effectively voted to disapprove of a rule that expanded abortion access through the VA.
- Bill Cassidy effectively voted for so-called “Born Alive” legislation to protect abortion survivors.
¶ Cassidy Opposed Exceptions To Abortion Bans For Survivors Of Rape Or Incest
¶ Cassidy Opposed Rape And Incest Exemptions For Abortion Laws
Cassidy Opposed Abortion Even 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]
¶ Cassidy Backed Abortion Bans Without Exemptions For Survivors Of Rape Or Incest
¶ Cassidy Supported Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks Without Rape And Incest Exceptions
2013: Cassidy Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks Without Exceptions. In June 2013, Cassidy was an original 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]
2012: Cassidy Co-Sponsored A Bill That Would Ban Abortions In Washington, D.C. After 20 Weeks, With No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest. In February 2012, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the federal criminal code to prohibit any person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion within the District of Columbia except in conformity with this Act’s requirements. [Would require] the physician to first make a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child, or reasonably rely upon such a determination made by another physician, by making inquiries of the pregnant woman and performing such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent physician would consider necessary. [Would prohibit] the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater. [Would make] an exception where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions.” The House rejected a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 220 to 154, where a two-thirds majority was needed for passage. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 3803; Congressional Actions, 1/23/12; Congressional Cosponsors, 2/3/12]
¶ Cassidy Supported Overturning Roe v. Wade
¶ Cassidy Celebrated The Dobbs Decision And The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade
Cassidy Celebrated The Dobbs Decision Saying The Decision Recognized That “An Unborn Child Has A Right To Life.” According to a tweet from Senator Cassidy, “Today’s decision recognizes that an unborn child has a right to life. Being pro-life means being pro-mothers, pro-babies, and pro-healthy futures- a philosophy I carry with me in the Senate. This is a deeply emotional issue for many Americans, no matter which side one stands on, but it is now up to individual states to enact their own policies.” [Twitter, @SenBillCassidy, 6/24/22]
Cassidy Said Overturning Roe v. Wade Would Be A Ruling “In Favor Of Our Country As A Whole.” According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) today spoke about the sanctity of life as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case is ruling on the Mississippi legislature’s ‘Gestational Age Act’ (HB 1510), which limits abortion to 15 weeks' gestation except in a medical emergency and in cases of ‘severe fetal abnormality.’ ‘The reason we speak of 15 weeks and knowing whether or not it’s a male or female, already you begin to see there’s a child with a future,’ said Dr. Cassidy. ‘I sure hope the Supreme Court rules in their favor. I think it would not only be in favor of a child such as this. It shall also be in favor of our country as a whole.’” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 11/30/21]
¶ Cassidy Dismissed Maternal Death Risks After The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade
Cassidy Said It Was “Odd” To Connect Abortion To Maternal Death Rates. According to POLITICO, “Asked how maternal death rates may be affected by the looming likelihood that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, peeling back federal abortion protections, Cassidy dismissed the risk. ‘If we’re using abortion to limit maternal deaths, that’s kind of an odd way to approach the problem,’ the senator said.” [POLITICO, 5/19/22]
¶ Cassidy Blamed Louisiana’s High Maternal Mortality Rate On The State’s Large Black Population
Cassidy Blamed Louisiana’s High Maternal Mortality Rate On The State’s Large Black Population. According to POLITICO, “Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said Louisiana’s maternal mortality rate — one of the worst in the nation — does not tell the whole story of maternal health in the state because of its large Black population and the uncommonly broad definition Louisiana uses. ‘About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear,’ Sen. Bill Cassidy said in an interview with POLITICO for the Harvard Chan School of Public Health series Public Health on the Brink.” [POLITICO, 5/19/22]
¶ Health Experts Connected Maternal Mortality Rates To Abortion Bans In States Including Louisiana
Louisiana And Other States With More Than 30 Deaths Per 100,000 Live Births Each Had Abortion Bans Go Into Effect After The Overturning Of Roe. According to Axios, “Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Mississippi top the CDC's list of states with the highest maternal mortality, each with more than 30 deaths per 100,000 live births. Each had ‘trigger’ laws, or abortion bans that took effect in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court eliminating a federal right to the procedure.” [Axios, 7/5/22]
Maternal Death Rates In States With “Trigger” Laws Were On Average Almost Two Times Higher Than Those In States With Laws Protecting Abortion Access. According to Axios, “Maternal death rates in states with ‘trigger’ laws are on average almost two times higher than those in states with laws protecting abortion access.” [Axios, 7/5/22]
¶ University Of Colorado: Maternal Death Rates Would Increase By 24% Under A Nationwide Abortion Ban
University Of Colorado: Maternal Death Rates Would Increase By 24% Under A Nationwide Abortion Ban. According to Axios, “The maternal death rate in the U.S. could increase by 24% if a nationwide abortion ban was enacted, according to a University of Colorado study. If abortion was illegal in the 26 states that have either already banned abortion or are likely to do so, there would have been 64 more maternal deaths in 2020, the research — which is not yet peer-reviewed — found.” [Axios, 7/5/22]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted Against Codifying The Right To Abortion Care
2022: Cassidy Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Have Codified The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Abortion Services And The Right For Patients To Receive Abortion Services. In May 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cassidy voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer motion to proceed to the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-51. [Senate Vote 170, 5/11/22; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]
2022: Cassidy Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Have Protected The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit Restrictions On Abortion. In February 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cassidy voted against the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 46-48. [Senate Vote 65, 2/28/22; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]
- The Bill Would Have Protected 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]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Ban Abortion Nationally After 20 Weeks And Penalize Doctors Who Performed Them
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Ban Abortion Across The Country After 20 Weeks
2018: Cassidy Effectively Voted For The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Which Banned Abortion After 20 Weeks. In January 2018, Cassidy voted for legislation banning abortion after the fetus is 20-weeks old. According to Congressional Quarterly, “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, with certain exceptions. 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 a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 51 to 46. [Senate Vote 25, 1/29/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/29/18; Congressional Actions, S. 2311]
2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions After 20-Weeks Gestation Except In Cases Of Rape Or Incest, But Would Erect New Barriers Such As Requiring Rape Victims To Document That They Received Prior Medical Treatment Or Counseling. In September 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and would impose criminal penalties on doctors that violated the ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, “prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later, except in cases of rape, incest against a minor or when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. Specifically, it would provide an exemption for pregnancies that are the result of rape against adult women if the woman obtained counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours before the abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor would also be exempt from the ban if the rape or incest had been reported before the abortion to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The measure would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. The measure also would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to an infant born at the same gestational age through natural birth.” The vote was on cloture and the Senate rejected the bill 54 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to invoke cloture. The House had earlier passed the bill. [Senate Vote 268, 9/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
- The Bill Would Sentence Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both. It prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however, either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
- Opponents Of The Bill Said The Exceptions For Health Of The Mother Were Inadequate. According to Congressional Quarterly, “They also say the bill lacks adequate health exceptions for the mother, as a doctor would have to wait until a condition was life-threatening before performing an abortion. Serious but non-life-threatening conditions couldn’t be treated under this ban, they say, which could result in permanent health issues such as infertility.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Penalize Doctors Who Performed Elective Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks
2021: Cassidy Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Providers That Conduct Elective Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks Of Gestation. In August 2021, Cassidy voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to establish penalties for providers of elective abortions at or after 20 weeks of gestation.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48-51. [Senate Vote 348, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3758; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]
¶ In Congress, Cassidy Opposed Federal Funding For Abortion Care
¶ Cassidy Said He Opposed Using Tax Dollars To Pay For Things That Violate A Person’s Values
Cassidy Said Individuals’ Tax Dollars “Should Not Pay For Things That Violate Their Values.” According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “Dr. Cassidy released the following statement: ‘Individuals’ tax dollars should not pay for things that violate their values. When selecting health insurance, individuals should know what is included so that they can choose an insurance plan aligned with their beliefs. We must continue to advocate for and defend those who cannot defend themselves, the unborn.’” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 2/27/15]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Support The Hyde Amendment Eight Times
2019: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Legislation Prohibiting Federal Funds From Funding Abortions Or Health Benefits Covering Abortions. In January 2019, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit[ed] federal funds from being used to fund abortions or to fund health benefits covering abortions.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The Senate rejected the motion, thereby defeating the bill, by a vote of 48 to 47. [Senate Vote 7, 1/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/19; Congressional Actions, S. 109]
2015: Cassidy Voted Against Striking The “Hyde Amendment,” Which Prevents Federal Funds From Being Used To Pay For Most Abortion Services, From Legislation. In April 2015, Cassidy voted against an amendment that would have, according to NARAL, “strike a reiteration of the Hyde amendment, a current-law public coverage ban on abortion care.” The underlying legislation that permanently patched the SGR reimbursement rate for Medicare physicians and reauthorized the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 43 to 57. [Senate Vote 140, 4/14/15; NARAL, 12/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1117; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation That Included The Hyde Amendment
¶ April 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation
April 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Expanding The “Hyde Amendment” To Prevent Federal Money In A Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund From Being Used To Pay For Most Abortion Services. In April 2015, Cassidy voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “remove[d] a provision in the bill that would state that amounts in the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund would be subject to limitations in the fiscal 2014 consolidated appropriations law prohibiting money appropriated under the law from being spent on abortions, except for cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger, to the same extent as if the money from the fund was appropriated under that law.” According to Planned Parenthood, the underlying bill, which established the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund that provided additional resources to survivors of human trafficking “ma[d]e permanent a prohibition of federal tax dollars from being used to pay for access to abortion care - a restrictive and harmful policy commonly referred to as the Hyde amendment.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 43 to 55. [Senate Vote 156, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Planned Parenthood, 2016 Congressional Scorecard; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 301; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation With Limited Exceptions
March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 42. Afterwards, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 76, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation With Limited Exceptions
March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s substitute version of the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 42. After another attempt to end debate on the bill with the controversial language failed, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 75, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation With Limited Exceptions
March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s substitute version of the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 57 to 41. After two other attempts to end debate on the bill with the controversial language failed, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 74, 3/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation With Limited Exceptions
March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 55 to 43. After several further attempts to end debate on the bill with the controversial language failed, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 73, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Expand The Hyde Amendment In Anti-Human Trafficking Legislation With Limited Exceptions
March 2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s substitute version of the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 55 to 43. After several further attempts to end debate on the bill with the controversial language failed, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 72, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion With Limited Exceptions
¶ 2021: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit American Rescue Plan Funds Being Used For Abortion Care
2021: Cassidy Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited Using American Rescue Plan Act Funds For Abortion Services. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cassidy voted for the “motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Murray, D-Wash., point of order that the Lankford amendment no. 1031 to the Schumer, D-N.Y., substitute amendment no. 891 to the bill is not germane and thus violates section 313(b)(1)(d) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment would make conforming changes to insert the bill's provisions related to public health programs and domestic violence prevention and support programs into the December 2020 omnibus appropriations and coronavirus relief law, which would prohibit the use of funds for abortion services.” The vote was on a motion to waive. The Senate failed to acquire a 3/5 majority and rejected the motion by a vote of 52-47. [Senate Vote 94, 3/6/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 1031; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 891; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]
¶ 2021: Cassidy Voted For An Amendment To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion Care
2021: Cassidy Voted For An Amendment To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion Services Or Prohibit Federal Funds To States And Localities That Penalize Entities That Do Not Cover Abortions. In August 2021, Cassidy voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to prohibit federal funding for abortions or federal funding to state or local governments that discriminate against entities that do not provide, cover or refer for abortions, consistent with the Hyde and Weldon amendments.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 50-49. [Senate Vote 336, 8/10/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/10/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3792; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]
¶ 2019: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Legislation Prohibiting Federal Funds Or Health Benefits From Covering Abortion Care
2019: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Legislation Prohibiting Federal Funds From Funding Abortions Or Health Benefits Covering Abortions. In January 2019, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit[ed] federal funds from being used to fund abortions or to fund health benefits covering abortions.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The Senate rejected the motion, thereby defeating the bill, by a vote of 48 to 47. [Senate Vote 7, 1/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/19; Congressional Actions, S. 109]
¶ 2014: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion With Narrow Exceptions
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 And 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]
- The 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]
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]
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 Also Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban Funding Abortion With Federal Funds
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]
¶ Cassidy’s Health Plan Included A Ban On Federal Funding For Abortion
Cassidy Outlined His Pledge To America Healthcare Plan Which Included A 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted Against Providing Federal Funds For Insurance Plans That Covered Abortions
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]
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]
¶ Cassidy Baselessly Claimed That Affordable Care Act Grants Were “Clearly” Going To Abortion Providers
Cassidy Baselessly Said That Despite Obama’s Promises Otherwise, Federal Funds Were “Clearly” Going To Abortion Providers Through Affordable Care Act 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]
¶ Cassidy Backed Legislation That Prohibited Federal Funds From Covering Any Health Plan That Covered Abortion Under The ACA
2011: Cassidy Co-Sponsored The Protect Life Act, Which Would Have Prohibited 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 On State Exchanges Plans That Covered Abortion Services. In October 2011, Cassidy voted for a 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]
- 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Prohibit The Use Of Federal Plans And 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 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]
¶ Cassidy Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act
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]
¶ 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]
- The 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted For An Amendment To Prohibit Federal Funding For Down Syndrome Abortions
2021: Cassidy Voted For An Amendment That Would Prohibit Funding For Down Syndrome Abortions Or Other Chromosomal Conditions. In August 2021, Cassidy voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to prohibit funding for abortions of unborn children with Down syndrome or other chromosomal conditions.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 49-50. [Senate Vote 350, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3331; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Block Zika Funding To Be Used For Abortion Care
2016: Cassidy Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, Which Stipulated That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In September 2016, Cassidy effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 46. [Senate Vote 135, 9/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
2016: Cassidy Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, Which Stipulated That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In July 2016, Cassidy effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 44. [Senate Vote 134, 7/14/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
2016: Cassidy Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, Which Stipulated That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In June 2016, Cassidy effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 48. [Senate Vote 112, 6/28/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
¶ Cassidy Co-Sponsored Legislation To Prohibit Providing Federal Education Funds To State And Local Agencies That Would Inform Students About Abortion
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]
¶ In Congress, Cassidy Opposed Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood
¶ Cassidy Supported Efforts To Prohibit Title X Funds From Going To Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood
2022: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Disapprove An October 2021 HHS Rule That Removed Restrictions On Title X Funding For Counseling And Referrals Related To Abortion Services. In April 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cassidy voted for the “motion to proceed to the joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the October 2021 Health and Human Services Department rule related to the Title X family planning program. The 2021 rule took effect on November 8, 2021, and removed restrictions on Title X funding for counseling and referrals related to abortion services, which were imposed by a March 2019 rule. It also made several modifications to the family planning program, including provisions related to updated standards of care, client-centered approaches, advancing health equity, and expanding individuals' access to a range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods. Under the measure, the October rule would have no force or effect, and Trump-era restrictions and standards under the 2019 rule would be effectively reinstated.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-49. [Senate Vote 140, 4/27/22; Congressional Quarterly, 4/27/22; Congressional Actions, S.J. Res. 41]
- The Resolution Would Restore A Ban On Clinics That Receive Federal Funds From Referring Pregnant Individuals To Abortion Providers, Which Was A Trump-Era Rule That Was Reversed By The Biden Administration In 2021. According to Bloomberg Law, “The Senate plans this week to take up a resolution to restore a prohibition on clinics that receive federal money from advising women on ending their pregnancies. A now-defunct regulation barring clinics in the federal program known as Title X from making referrals to abortion providers was a major victory for the Trump administration. The Biden administration reversed it in a 2021 rule.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/27/22]
- Guttmacher Institute: The Trump-Era Rule That Restricted Title X Clinics Led To The Withdrawal Of Almost 25% Of Participants From The Program And Reduced The Ability To Provide Contraceptive Services To Almost 1.6 Million Patients. According to Bloomberg Law, “The Trump-era regulation barring Title X clinics from making referrals to abortion providers resulted in almost 25% of participants in the program leaving, Guttmacher Institute data show. It also reduced the Title X network’s capacity to provide women with contraceptive services by at least 46%, or roughly 1.6 million patients.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/27/22]
2021: Cassidy Introduced The “Protect Funding For Women’s Health Care Act” To Prohibit Title X Funds From Going To Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood. According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “As the Biden Administration works to reverse a rule that prevents Title X funds from going to abortion providers, U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Joni Ernst (R-IA) and 32 of their colleagues introduced legislation to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to the nation's single largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood. The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act prohibits taxpayer dollars from going to Planned Parenthood. Instead, the bill redirects those funds to other eligible women's health care providers while ensuring there is no reduction in federal funding for women's health services. ‘Louisiana families should not be forced to give their hard-earned tax dollars to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood,’ said Dr. Cassidy. ‘This measure would protect babies and taxpayers while ensuring full funding for the thousands of centers around the country that provide true health care to women.’” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 4/15/21]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Disapprove Of A Rule To Allow Title X Funds To Go To Planned Parenthood Health Centers
2017: Cassidy Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Effectively Withheld Title X Funds To States That Restrict Title X Funds To Planned Parenthood. In March 2017, Cassidy 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 passage. The Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Pence breaking the tie in favor of the bill. The legislation later became law. [Senate Vote 101, 3/30/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 43]
2017: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Effectively Withheld Title X Funds To States That Restrict Title X Funds To Planned Parenthood. In March 2017, Cassidy effectively 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 a motion to proceed. The Senate adopted the motion by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Pence breaking the tie in favor of the motion. The Senate later passed the resolution. The legislation later became law. [Senate Vote 100, 3/30/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 43]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Restrict Funding For Planned Parenthood On At Least Eight Occasions
¶ 2018: Cassidy Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
2018: Cassidy Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In August 2018, Cassidy voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit[ed] federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 Labor, HHS, Education and Defense appropriations bill. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 48. [Senate Vote 191, 8/23/18; Congressional Quarterly, 8/23/18; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3967; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3695; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6157]
2018: Cassidy Voted For An Amendment To Stop Taxpayer Dollars From Going To Entities That Perform Abortion, Including Planned Parenthood. According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), released the following statement after voting in support of amendment #3967 to the minibus appropriations package for Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (H.R. 6157), which would have stopped taxpayer dollars from funding Planned Parenthood and other entities that perform abortions. The amendment failed by a vote of 45-48. ‘Louisiana families should not be forced to give their hard-earned tax dollars to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood,’ said Dr. Cassidy. ‘This measure would protect babies and taxpayers while ensuring full funding for the thousands of centers around the country that provide true health care to women.’” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 8/23/18]
¶ 2017: Cassidy Voted To Eliminate Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood
2017: Cassidy Voted To Eliminate Planned Parenthood’s Federal Funding. According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement after voting to eliminate Planned Parenthood's federal funding and redistribute the money to state and local health departments, community health centers, and hospitals that provide women’s health care services.” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 8/3/15]
¶ 2015: Cassidy Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
2015: Cassidy Voted For A Bill That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Cassidy voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “scrap[ed] in 2018 the law's Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges.” Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance.” The vote was on passage of a reconciliation bill. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 52 to 47. The bill was later passed by the full Congress, which the president then vetoed. The House was not able to override the veto. [Senate Vote 329, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for defunding Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section of the measure that would block for one year federal funding that is considered direct spending to Planned Parenthood.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline required a 3/5’s majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48 to 52. [Senate Vote 314, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2885; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Shut Down The Federal Government Via A 10-Week Continuing Resolution That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In September 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a 10-week continuing resolution that defunded Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote was on a “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Cochran, R-Miss., substitute amendment no. 2669 that would provide continuing appropriations for government operations through Dec. 11, 2015, at an annual rate of about $1.017 trillion. It also would prohibit for one year federal funding for Planned Parenthood or its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform, or fund other entities that perform, abortions during that period. The substitute amendment would redirect $235 million to community health centers.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 47 to 52. [Senate Vote 270, 9/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 719; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2669; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 61]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Shut Down The Government Over Planned Parenthood Funding
2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Shut Down The Federal Government Via A 10-Week Continuing Resolution That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In September 2015, Cassidy effectively voted for a 10-week continuing resolution that defunded Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote was on a “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Cochran, R-Miss., substitute amendment no. 2669 that would provide continuing appropriations for government operations through Dec. 11, 2015, at an annual rate of about $1.017 trillion. It also would prohibit for one year federal funding for Planned Parenthood or its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform, or fund other entities that perform, abortions during that period. The substitute amendment would redirect $235 million to community health centers.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 47 to 52. [Senate Vote 270, 9/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 719; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2669; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 61]
¶ In 2011, Alone, Cassidy Voted At Least Three Times To Defund Planned Parenthood
2011: Cassidy Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In April 2011, Cassidy voted for a resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “bar[red] the use of funds made available in the bill to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The vote was on a concurrent resolution to order the House clerk to make a correction in the enrollment of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011 by inserting the proposed amendment. The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 241 to 185, and it was then sent to the Senate, which rejected it. [House Vote 271, 4/14/11; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 36]
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 Defund Planned Parenthood. In February 2011, Cassidy voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “prohibit[ed] any funds in the bill from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The underlying bill combined the Defense Appropriations Act and the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment was approved by the House by a vote of 240 to 185. The House approved the underlying bill and sent it to the Senate, which substituted different legislation into the bill. [House Vote 93, 2/18/11; Congressional Quarterly, 2/18/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 95; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
¶ 2009: Cassidy Voted To Restrict Federal Funding To Planned Parenthood
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]
¶ Cassidy Signed Onto An Amicus Brief To The Supreme Court On A Case Regarding Funding For Planned Parenthood Through Medicaid
Cassidy Signed Onto An Amicus Brief To The Supreme Court Asking For The Review Of A Case Regarding Medicaid Funds Going To Planned Parenthood. According to a press release from Senator Cassidy, “U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), today joined 23 of his Senate Republican colleagues in submitting an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Gee v. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case currently bars states from prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortion business Planned Parenthood through Medicaid. ‘Taxpayers should not be forced to fund an abortion business like Planned Parenthood,’ said Dr. Cassidy. ‘States should be able to decide which entities can participate in their Medicaid programs, so I hope the Supreme Court will choose to consider this issue.’” [Senator Cassidy Press Release, 5/31/18]
¶ Cassidy Pushed Efforts To Repeal The Affordable Care Act That Would Have Defunded Planned Parenthood
2017: Cassidy Voted For The So Called “Skinny Repeal” Version Of Trumpcare, Which Defunded Planned Parenthood For One Year. In July 2017, Cassidy voted for the Health Care Freedom Act, also known as “skinny repeal.” According to Vox, “The Health Care Freedom Act is the Senate Republicans’ last-ditch attempt to repeal Obamacare. Released around 10 o’clock Thursday night, it is expected to come to a vote early Friday morning. […] This HCFA would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that all Americans carry coverage. It would nix the requirement that large employers provide coverage to all workers, too. The bill includes a three-year repeal of the medical device tax and a one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 49 to 51. [Senate Vote 179, 7/28/17; Vox, 7/27/17; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 667; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
2017: Cassidy Voted For A “Repeal And Delay” Version Of Trumpcare, Which Would Have Defunded Planned Parenthood. In July 2017, Cassidy voted for the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have “sunset Medicaid expansion and certain taxes created under the 2010 health care overhaul, repeal[ed] the individual and employer mandates, would [have] exclude[d] health plans that cover abortion from certain tax credits and would [have] ban[ned] federal funding for abortion providers that receive at least $1 million in federal funding annually.” The underlying legislation was the reconciliation vehicle for Trumpcare. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 55. [Senate Vote 169, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/25/17; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 271; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
¶ Cassidy Demanded Paycheck Protection Plan Loans That Went To Planned Parenthood Affiliates Be Returned
2020: Cassidy Demanded Paycheck Protection Plan Loans That Went To Planned Parenthood Affiliates Be Returned. According to the Daily Advertiser, “Last year, the press reported that 38 Planned Parenthood affiliates received over $80 million in taxpayer funds meant for small business relief. They have nearly $2 billion in assets and over 16,000 employees nationwide. They are not a small business. Last week, the U.S. Congress took action to extend the PPP until June 30, 2021. This program is a lifeline for small businesses, churches, and charities as we recover from the pandemic. It was not meant to pad the purses of large, national organizations. I, along with others, wrote a letter to the Small Business Administration to ensure Paycheck Protection Plan loans are not issued to Planned Parenthood and, if they were issued, they are promptly returned. Our country was founded on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is important that these rights are protected and respected. This means protecting the unborn. The lives and rights of unborn children are under attack. All life is sacred and precious. The Biden Administration's recent actions make it clear where they stand on unborn children. We must speak for those who do not have voices whether its ensuring Planned Parenthood does not receive PPP loans or pushing back against the efforts of this administration to make abortion more likely and more accessible.” [Daily Advertiser, 4/9/21]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted Against Stripping Legislative Language To Defund Planned Parenthood Out Of A Bill
2015: Cassidy Effectively Voted Against Stripping A Bill Of A Provision Defunding Planned Parenthood While Also Establishing A Fund To Provide Payments To Women’s Health Clinics For Security. In December 2015, Cassidy effectively voted against stripping a bill of a provision defunding Planned Parenthood while also establishing a fund to provide payments to women’s health clinics for security. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section that would block for one year federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It also would [have] establish[ed] a fund to make payments to women's health clinics to provide services and to ensure safety of such clinics.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to table. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 54 to 46. [Senate Vote 311, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2876; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
¶ Cassidy Dismissed Concerns That Medication Abortion Was Under Threat After Voting To Restrict It
¶ Cassidy Called Public Reaction To The Legal Dispute Over Mifepristone And The FDA’s Authority “Totally Alarmist”
Cassidy Called Public Reaction To The Legal Dispute Over Mifepristone And The FDA’s Authority “Totally Alarmist.” According to Business Insider, “Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy called public reaction to the ongoing legal dispute over the abortion medication mifepristone and the FDA's authority ‘totally alarmist’ on Sunday. The Louisiana senator also insisted that decisions on abortion laws had been returned to the states after last year's Supreme Court decision. Yet members of his own party have publicly called for nationwide limits on abortion. On the NBC News show ‘Meet the Press,’ host Chuck Todd asked Cassidy about concerns that a ruling by a Texas judge earlier this month — which declared the FDA's decades-old approval of mifepristone unlawful — could upend the federal agency's authority. ‘I think that's totally alarmist,’ Cassidy said on Sunday.” [Business Insider, 4/16/23]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Bar Some Federal Funds From Being Used On Medication Abortion
2011: Cassidy Voted To Bar Funds In The 2012 Agricultural Appropriations Bill From Being Used For The Drug Mifepristone. 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]
- 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]
¶ Cassidy Received Praise, Endorsements, And Campaign Support From Anti-Abortion Groups
¶ National Right To Life Endorsed Cassidy
2014: The National Right To Life Endorsed Cassidy For Senate. According to Bill Cassidy’s campaign website, “The National Right to Life Committee today endorsed U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) for U.S. Senate in his challenge to unseat pro-abortion Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) ‘Louisiana is a pro-life state and Mary Landrieu’s voting record is far removed from those pro-life values,’ said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president. ‘It’s time for Louisiana voters to elect a true pro-life senator who will provide a strong voice for the most vulnerable members of our society by electing Bill Cassidy.’” [Bill Cassidy Campaign Website, 10/1/14]
¶ 2010: Cassidy Received A 100% Rating From National Right To Life And Louisiana Right To Life
2010: Cassidy Received A 100% Rating By The National Right To Life. According to The Advocate, “National Right to Life, a Washington, D.C., group opposing abortion, gave Cassidy a 100 percent rating in voting the way the group approved on six pieces of legislation. The National Rifle Association gave Cassidy an ‘A’ grade.” [Advocate, 10/29/10]
Louisiana Right To Life Federation, A National Right To Life Committee Affiliate, Gave Cassidy A “100% Pro-Life Voting Record.” According to the Louisiana Right to Life Federation “Since being elected to Congress in 2008, Congressman Cassidy has cast 18 out of 18 pro-life votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, giving him a 100% pro-life voting record.” [Louisiana Right to Life Federation, 8/20/14]
¶ National Right To Life Called To End All Abortions, Including In Cases Of Rape Or Incest
National Right To Life’s Long-Term Goal Was To Eliminate All Abortions, Even In The Case Of Rape And Incest. According to a National Right To Life press release, “Ernst’s strong pro-life position stands in sharp contrast with pro-abortion Rep. Bruce Braley, who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record in Congress. Ernst opposes using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion and supports the legislation that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks on the basis that these children are capable of feeling excruciating pain. Bruce Braley voted against H.R. 7 – the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act – which would prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion by codifying the principles of the Hyde Amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis. Braley also voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks based on the scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain. Braley’s pro-abortion position is so extreme that he is a co-sponsor of H.R. 3471, which can most accurately be described as the ‘Abortion Until Birth Protection Act.’ This is an extreme bill that, if enacted, would invalidate nearly all state limitations on abortion, including Iowa’s two laws that protect individuals and private hospitals from being compelled to provide or participate in abortions. Bruce Braley voted to enact ObamaCare, which provides government funding for health plans that pay for abortion on demand, and will result in rationing of lifesaving medical treatments. Joni Ernst is needed in the U.S. Senate to help reverse the abortion-expanding and rationing effects of that law.” [National Right To Life – Press Release, 6/17/14]
¶ National Right To Life Committee Claimed Abortion Rights Supporters Used Rape Exemptions As A “Scare Tactic”
National Right To Life Committee Claimed That Abortion Rights Groups Used The Example Of An Abortion From Rape As A “Scare Tactic” To “Reinforce A False Perception That There Is A Need For Abortion In Desperate Cases.” According to the National Right to Life Committee, “Not surprisingly, when asked to suggest the question they would least like to be asked, average pro-lifers usually say it is about the ‘hard cases,’ including questions posed about rape, incest, and the presence of severe fetal abnormality that seem to many people to be almost unanswerable. While we do not deny that these difficult cases arouse powerful emotional responses, there are answers. The following are some helpful hints, the kind that will ease your mind and keep you from backing away when these questions are thrown at you. First of all it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions do not happen as a result of any of these reasons. In fact, according to a study in Family Planning Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for all of these reasons combined. However, this infrequency has never prevented pro-abortion proponents from using these examples as scare tactics to reinforce a false perception that there is a need for abortion in desperate cases.” [National Right to Life Committee, Accessed 7/31/14]
National Right To Life Committee: Societal Expectation “Subjected” Women To Abortions After They Had Been Raped. According to the National Right to Life Committee, “Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father. Once again the mother is pitted against her child. Subjecting her to an abortion only compounds the initial violence of the rape. Only in this second tragedy, the woman becomes the aggressor against her own child.” [National Right to Life Committee, Accessed 7/31/14]
¶ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Endorsed Cassidy’s Senate Bids
2020: Susan B. Anthony List Endorsed Bill Cassidy For Senate. According to Bill Cassidy for Senate, “Today, the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List’s Candidate Fund PAC endorsed U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) for reelection to the U.S. Senate, calling him ‘a bold voice for life.’” [Bill Cassidy for Senate, 9/13/20]
2014: Susan B. Anthony List Endorsed Cassidy For Senate. According to a press release by Susan B. Anthony List, “Today the national pro-life political action committee the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund announced its endorsement of Bill Cassidy for U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The group’s super PAC, Women Speak Out PAC, has already knocked on more than 100,000 doors and made more than 50,000 calls across the state reaching voters with a message to expose Senator Mary Landrieu’s support for taxpayer funding of abortion and refusal to protect babies after 5 months – more than halfway through pregnancy. ‘Senator Mary Landrieu has failed to stand up for pro-life Louisiana values,’ said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the SBA List Candidate Fund. “She has voted for taxpayer funding of abortion and refuses to support a compassionate ban on abortion after five months – that’s more than halfway through pregnancy. She must be defeated. We know that Congressman Bill Cassidy will defend the unborn and their mothers, and fight for the conscience rights of taxpayers.” [Susan B. Anthony List, 10/20/14]
¶ Susan B. Anthony List Ran Ads Against Cassidy’s Opponent And Set Up Field Offices Across Louisiana In 2014
2014: Susan B. Anthony List Planned On Spending Over $1 Million Against Landrieu For Voting For The ACA. According to the Nation, “In this heavily Catholic state, women’s health could prove a more meaningful point of divergence between the candidates. Cassidy is deeply conservative when it comes to abortion; he opposes it even in cases of rape and incest. On Sunday, members of his staff attended an annual breakfast in Baton Rouge sponsored by Right to Life, the group responsible for the anti-Landrieu billboard in Lafayette as well as several others in Shreveport and on the interstate that runs through Southern Louisiana. The Susan B. Anthony List plans to spend more than $1 million against Landrieu on a ground campaign and its own ads, which describe Landrieu’s vote for the Affordable Care Act as a vote for ‘taxpayer-funded abortion.’’ [Nation, 6/23/14]
2014: Susan B. Anthony List Opened Five Field Offices In Louisiana. According to Daily World, “Meanwhile, national conservative women’s political funder the Susan B. Anthony List has launched a ground offensive against the senator, with five field offices across Louisiana and volunteers knocking on thousands of doors.” [Daily World, 8/5/14]
¶ Cassidy Had An “A” Ranking From Anti-Abortion Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Applauded Cassidy’s Anti-Abortion Record. According to Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, “Senator Cassidy has stood up against extremist nominees of the pro-abortion Biden-Harris administration, against pro-abortion action both in the administration and through legislation advanced by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Sen. Cassidy has voted consistently to defend the lives of the unborn and infants. This includes stopping hard-earned tax dollars from paying for abortion, whether domestically or internationally, and protecting health care provider rights for those who refuse to engage in brutal abortions.” [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, accessed 9/18/23]
Cassidy Received An “A” Rating From Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America For His Current Term From 2021-2027. According to Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Cassidy received an A Rating for his term that began in 2021.
[Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, accessed 9/20/23]
Cassidy Received An “A+” Rating From Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America For His First Term From 2015-2021. According to Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Cassidy received an A+ Rating from 2015-2021.
[Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, accessed 9/20/23]
¶ Susan B. Anthony List Later Changed Its Name To Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
2022: Susan B. Anthony List Rebranded To Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. According to the National Review, “Named after one of the most famous pro-life feminists, SBA List aimed to recruit and support pro-life women in politics. […] In recognition of how much the group’s work has expanded and how much its mission has evolved, it has just announced a major rebrand, including a new name: Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.” [National Review, 6/1/22]
¶ Cassidy Supported Legislation To Allow Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Care
¶ Cassidy Supported A So-Called “Conscience Clause,” Which Allowed Health Care Providers To Refuse To Provide Abortion Care
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]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Establish “Conscience Protections” For Health Care Providers, Allowing Them To Refuse To Provide Abortion Care
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 Through “Conscience Protections.” 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Potentially Allow Health Care Providers To Refuse To Perform An Abortion, Even In Cases Where It Would Save A Person’s Life
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]
- The 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]
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; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]
¶ Cassidy Co-Sponsored Legislation To Restrict Access To Abortion Care For Minors
¶ Cassidy Co-Sponsored A Bill To Make It A Crime To Transport A Minor Across State Lines To Obtain An Abortion
Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Would Have 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]
¶ Cassidy Supported Efforts To Curb Access To Contraception
¶ Cassidy Railed Against The Senate For Rejecting The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Have Restricted Access To Contraception
Cassidy Called The Senate’s 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]
¶ The Blunt Amendment Would Have Allowed Employers To Deny ACA-Mandated Coverage Based On Religious Or Moral Grounds
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, “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, 3/1/12]
Blunt Offered His Amendment In Reaction To A Department of Health and Human Services Directive To Require All Employers To Offer Contraception Coverage In Health Plans. According to CNN, “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, 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, “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, 3/1/12]
¶ Opponents Argued That The 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted For Legislation To Allow Employers To Opt Out Of The ACA’s Contraception Mandate For A Year
2013: Cassidy Voted To Add A Provision Allowing Employers To Opt Out For A Year From The ACA’s Requirement That Employer-Provided Health Insurance Cover Women’s Preventative Care, Including Contraception, To Legislation That Would Have Prevented A Government Shutdown. In September 2013, Cassidy voted to amend a proposed continuing appropriations resolution that would have funded the federal government through November 15, 2013, by adding a provision that, according to CNN, was a “so-called ‘conscience clause,’” which “would allow employers and insurers to opt out of preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current Obamacare rules. […] With this move, House Republican leaders would give any employer or group health plan the ability to opt out of contraception coverage for the next year.” The other provisions, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “delay[ed] for one year implementation of any provision of the 2010 health care overhaul that would take effect between Oct. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2014, including the individual mandate and the imposition or increase of specified taxes and fees, […] bar[red] appropriations and transfers from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Fund, […] [and] set the expiration date for the continuing appropriations to Dec. 15, 2013.” The vote was on a motion to concur, with a further amendment, to the Senate’s amendment to the continuing resolution that the House had passed 10 days earlier. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 231 to 192. The Senate later rejected the House’s proposed amendment. [House Vote 498, 9/29/13; Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 59; Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13; CNN, 9/28/13; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 59]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Make It Easier To Restrict Contraception Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act
2017: Cassidy Effectively Voted Against Requiring 60 Votes To Consider Legislation That Would Reduce Reproductive Health Care Coverage And Birth Control Coverage From The Affordable Care Act. In January 2017, Cassidy voted against waiving a point of order against an amendment that said, according to the text of the amendment, “(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that makes women sick again by eliminating or reducing access to women’s health care, including decreases in access to, or coverage of, reproductive health care services including contraceptive counseling, birth control, and maternity care, and primary and preventive health care as afforded to them under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148). (b) Legislation That Makes Women Sick Again.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘makes women sick again’ with respect to legislation refers to any provision of a bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report, that would— […] (C) permitting discrimination against providers who provide reproductive health care benefits or services to women; or […] (3) eliminate, or reduce the scope or scale of, the benefits women would have received pursuant to the requirements under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the amendments made to that title. (c) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three- fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).” The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 budget resolution designed to being the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, which could be passed by a majority vote. The vote was on a motion to waive the budget act in relation to the amendment. The vote required a three-fifths vote for approval. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49 to 49. [Senate Vote 23, 1/11/17; Congressional Record, 1/11/17; Vox, 1/3/07; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 82; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 3]
¶ Cassidy Criticized Obama’s Contraception Mandate
Cassidy Blasted 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]
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 Supported The Supreme Court’s Decision In The Hobby Lobby Case
Cassidy Applauded The Supreme Court’s Decision To “Uphold Religious Freedom” In The Hobby Lobby Case. 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 Said He 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 Said He Supported Allowing Birth Control To Be Sold Over The Counter, Which Could End Up Costing People More
Cassidy Said He Supported Allowing Birth Control To Be Sold Over The Counter. According to an interview of then-Rep. Bill Cassidy with LSU Tiger TV, obtained via their YouTube account, “TigerTV News Reporter Laryssa Bonacquisti: You mentioned Obamacare. What do you think—there have been a lot of young people who are now becoming more sexually active. What do you think about us providing, or the government providing them with the care, such as birth control? Rep. Bill Cassidy: Yeah, so the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has recommended that birth control be sold over the counter. It actually then increases your freedom. It removes the government from the decision at all. And since it’s--I’m a doctor--and since the College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has recommended it, I’m ok with that. If the docs who care for women think that’s the way it should be, then that’s the way it should be. We should just remove the government from the decision and allow it to be sold over the counter.” [LSU Tiger TV, 10/28/14]
¶ Planned Parenthood Opposed Over The Counter Birth Control, Citing Additional Costs And Barriers
Planned Parenthood Noted That The Most Effective Forms Of Birth Control Would Still Require Insurance Coverage, Which Meant They Could Not Be Provided Over The Counter. According to Planned Parenthood, “The increase in prescription birth control use does not take into account how many women have newly accessed other forms of contraception, such as IUDs — which are covered at no copay under the women’s preventive benefit. IUDs cannot be approved OTC because they require insertion by a trained health care provider. Likewise, it is important to note that birth control formulations vary considerably and that the forms of birth control most likely to become available OTC may not be the best option for any given individual woman.” [Planned Parenthood, 9/2/14]
Planned Parenthood Noted That Women Would Face Additional Costs And Barriers To Receive Over The Counter Birth Control Not Covered By Prescription. According to Planned Parenthood, “Although birth control OTC would make some forms of contraception more readily available to women, women would likely face additional cost barriers since health plans generally do not cover OTC products without a prescription.” [Planned Parenthood, 9/2/14]
Planned Parenthood Noted That Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Birth Control Would Be A “Major Barrier To Access” For Women. According to Planned Parenthood, “Studies show that the out-of-pocket costs related to birth control are a major barrier to access. According to a national survey, more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, have used birth control inconsistently. Furthermore, 55 percent of women 18-34 report having struggled with the cost of birth control at some point in their lives. Prescriptions for birth control increased more than 4 percent in the first year after the birth control benefit went into effect — a clear demonstration of how important it is to remove cost barriers — and of how critical this benefit is to women.” [Planned Parenthood, 9/2/14]
¶ Cassidy Dismissed The Notion That Birth Control Could Help Reduce 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]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Restrict People From Using Health Savings Accounts To Pay For Abortion Care
¶ Cassidy 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]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Restrict Access To Private Insurance Plans That Covered Abortion
2017: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Restrict Access To Private Insurance Plans That Provide Abortion Coverage. In July 2017, Cassidy effectively voted for legislation that would have, according to Planned Parenthood, “restructured the tax credits in the underlying legislation in order to restrict coverage of abortion. This Strange Amendment was not about segregating federal funds from abortion – it was really about restricting access to safe and legal abortion. This proposal needlessly restricted women’s access to private plans that offer abortion coverage. Health plans participating in the Marketplace may already choose whether or not to offer coverage of abortion – unless state law prohibits or requires abortion coverage.” The underlying legislation was the legislative vehicle for Trumpcare. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline for the amendment, which required a three-fifths majority. The Senate rejected the motion, thereby defeating the amendment, by a vote of 50 to 50. [Senate Vote 174, 7/27/17; Planned Parenthood Action Congressional Scorecard, Accessed 5/1/18; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 389; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Block Federal Funds For Medical School Education From Being Used To Provide Training On Abortion
¶ Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Funds For Medical School Education From Being Used To Provide Training On Abortion Care
2011: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Funds For Medical School Education From Being Used To Provide Training On Abortion Procedures. In May 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, have “bar[red] the use of funds authorized in the bill for graduate medical education to provide abortion or training in abortion procedures. It also would [have] bar[red] the use of funds for a teaching health center that discriminates against individual health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” The underlying bill dealt with how Congress authorized funding for graduate medical education. The House passed the amendment by a vote of 234 to 182. The underlying bill passed the house and the Senate took no subsequent action on it. [House Vote 338, 5/25/11; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 298; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1216]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Create Criminal Penalties For Sex-Selective Abortions
¶ Cassidy Voted To Create Criminal Penalties For Performing Or Assisting Someone In Obtaining A Sex-Selective Abortion
2012: Cassidy Voted To Create Criminal Penalties For Performing A Sex-Selective Abortion Or Assisting A Woman With Crossing State Lines To Obtain A Sex-Selective Abortion. In May 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “impose[d] fines or a maximum five-year sentence, or both, on individuals who perform an abortion knowing the abortion is sought based on the sex of the fetus. The same penalties would [have] appl[ied] to individuals who transport a woman into the United States or across state lines for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy based on the sex of the fetus or to anyone who solicits or accepts payment for performing an abortion based solely on the sex of the fetus.” The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority in order to succeed. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 246 to 168. [House Vote 299, 5/31/12; Congressional Actions, 5/31/12; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3541]
- Opponents Said That Doctors Could Be Prosecuted For Failing To Determine Private Motivations Behind Women’s Decision To Have An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Obama administration has indicated opposition to the measure. ‘The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision,’ White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith said in a statement to ABC. ‘The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.’ […] Democratic critics called the bill a GOP attempt to chip away at women’s reproductive rights. They argued that it would force doctors to become ‘mind readers’ who must police their patients.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/31/12]
¶ Cassidy Voted To Prohibit D.C. From Using Locally Raised Money For Abortion Care
¶ Cassidy Voted To Prohibit D.C. From Spending Locally Raised Money For Abortion
2009: Cassidy Voted Against An FY 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Bill Which Also Allowed Washington, D.C. To Spend Locally Raised Funds To Pay For Abortions. In July 2009, Cassidy voted against an FY 2010 financial services appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill “eliminates the current ban on using local D.C. funds for abortions and for domestic partnership benefits.” The overall bill, also according to Congressional Quarterly, “would provide $46.2 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Treasury Department; the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies; and the District of Columbia. The bill would provide $13.4 billion for the Treasury Department, of which $12.1 billion is for the IRS. It would appropriate $20 billion for the Office of Personnel Management and $6.9 billion for the operation of the federal court system. It would fund the Executive Office of the President at $754 million and provide $768 million in federal payments for the District of Columbia government.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 208. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 571, 7/16/09; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/09; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/09; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3170]
2009: Cassidy Effectively Voted Against Allowing Washington, D.C. To Spend Locally Raised Funds To Pay For Abortions. In July 2009, Cassidy voted against a rule that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $46.2 billion in fiscal 2010 for the Treasury Department; the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies; and the District of Columbia.” According to the Family Research Council, the rule “would not allow a vote on an amendment to restore the ban on taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia.” According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill set by the rule “eliminates the current ban on using local D.C. funds for abortions and for domestic partnership benefits.” The vote was on the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216 to 213. The House later passed the underlying bill, with the provision on abortion, but the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 553, 7/16/09; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/09; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/09; Family Research Council, 111th Congress Vote Scorecard; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3170; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 644]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Disapprove Of A Rule That Expanded Abortion Access Through The VA
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Disapprove Of A Rule That Expanded Abortion Access Through The VA
2023: Cassidy Effectively Voted To Disapprove A VA Rule That Allowed For VA Coverage Of Abortion Counseling And Abortion Services In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or When The Life Of The Mother Were Endangered. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cassidy voted for the “motion to proceed to the joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the September 2022 Veterans Affairs Department rule that reversed longstanding VA regulations excluding medical benefit coverage for abortion counseling and procedures. The rule allows for coverage of abortion counseling and for coverage of abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant beneficiary would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term, under veterans' TRICARE medical benefits and the VA's Civilian Health and Medical Program (CHAMPVA). The rule took effect on Sept. 9, 2022. Under the measure, the rule would have no force or effect.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 48 to 51. [Senate Vote 90, 4/19/23; Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23; Congressional Actions, S.J. Res. 10]
- The Joint Resolution Would Disapprove A VA Rule That Would Allow The VA To Provide Abortions To Veterans And Beneficiaries In Cases Of Life Endangerment. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Senate on Wednesday rejected, 48-51, a procedural vote on a joint resolution introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., that would disapprove of a Veterans Affairs Department rule related to abortion. In September, the VA issued an interim final rule that would allow the department to provide abortions to pregnant veterans and their beneficiaries in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest. The policy would override any state policies that limit abortion in these circumstances.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23]
- The VA Rule Would Permit Clinics To Discuss Options With Pregnant Patients And Provide Limited Abortion Access Under The Civilian Health And Medical Program Of The VA. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The VA rule would also allow clinics to provide pregnant patients with information about their options and grant limited abortion access to individuals under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted For So-Called “Born-Alive” Legislation To Protect Abortion Survivors
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted For Legislation To Protect So-Called “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
2019: Cassidy Effectively Voted For The So-Called “Born-Alive” Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In February 2019, Cassidy effectively voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require health care practitioners to provide medical care to any infant that survives an abortion procedure, to the extent legally required for any infant born at the same gestational age.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 27, 2/25/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/19; Congressional Actions, S. 311]
- National Abortion Federation: “This Anti-Choice Bill Uses Inflammatory Language In Yet Another Attempt To Justify Politically-Motivated, Medically-Unnecessary Interference In The Practice Of Medicine, Interference That Threatens Women’s Access To Reproductive Health Care.” According to the National Abortion Federation, “This anti-choice bill uses inflammatory language in yet another attempt to justify politically-motivated, medically-unnecessary interference in the practice of medicine, interference that threatens women’s access to reproductive health care. It is an attempt to distract from the Trump-Pence assault on safe, legal abortion care and is intended to intimidate abortion providers so that they stop providing essential heath care. These bills are written by anti-choice politicians to score points with their extremist base; they disregard the health of women and their families. Today’s attempt to pass yet another inflammatory and medically unnecessary bill demonstrates, once again, that the only thing anti-choice politicians in Congress can agree upon is finding new ways to demonize women who need to access safe, legal abortion care.” [National Abortion Federation, 2/25/19]
¶ Cassidy Effectively Voted To Create Penalties For Health Care Providers Who Did Not Provide Adequate Treatment To Infants Who Survived An Abortion
2021: Cassidy Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Health Care Providers Who Do Not Provide The Same Medical Treatment To An Infant Who Survived An Abortion As Babies Born At The Same Gestational Age. In February 2021, Cassidy voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Durbin, D-Ill., point of order that the Sasse amendment no. 192 amendment is not germane and thus violates section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. The amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health care, including legislation to establish criminal and civil penalties for health care providers who do not provide the same degree of medical care for an infant who survives an abortion procedure as would be provided to another infant born at the same gestational age.” The vote was on a motion to waive. The Senate rejected the motion, failing to acquire 3/5 of the vote, by a vote of 52-48. [Senate Vote 23, 2/4/21; Congressional Quarterly, 2/4/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt 192; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 5]