2013: Cassidy Was Original Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Abortion After 20 Weeks Without Exceptions. In June 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill banning most abortion across the country twenty weeks after conception. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would create a nationwide ban on abortions performed at 20 weeks or later, except in cases where the life of the woman is in danger. The bill originally did not provide exceptions to the ban in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest against a minor. It also would impose criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban and subject violators to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both.’ The House approved the bill by a vote of 228 to 196. As of November 2013, the Senate had taken any substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 251, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1797]
Access to Abortion
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]
Cassidy Issued A Statement On The Senate’s Rejection Of The Blunt Amendment. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement on the tabling of Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to end the unconstitutional contraception mandate. ‘Today’s vote to table Senator Blunt’s ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,’ is very disappointing. This was good legislation - it would reverse the unconstitutional contraception mandate in the President’s health care law and would preserve the constitutional right of religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years. ‘Unfortunately, this is only one of many unconstitutional flaws in the President’s health care law. House Republicans will continue to fight to reverse not only the contraception mandate but the entire health care law.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 3/2/12]
Cassidy Called The Rejection Of The Blunt Amendment “Disappointing” Because It Was “Good Legislation” That Preserved Constitutional And Religious Freedoms. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement on the tabling of Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to end the unconstitutional contraception mandate. ‘Today’s vote to table Senator Blunt’s ‘Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,’ is very disappointing. This was good legislation - it would reverse the unconstitutional contraception mandate in the President’s health care law and would preserve the constitutional right of religious freedom that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years. ‘Unfortunately, this is only one of many unconstitutional flaws in the President’s health care law. House Republicans will continue to fight to reverse not only the contraception mandate but the entire health care law.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 3/2/12]
Controversial Senate Amendment, The Blunt Amendment, Proposed To Give All Employers, Religious And Non-Religious, The Ability To Opt-Out Of Health Care Requirements With Which They Disagreed On Moral Or Religious Grounds. According to CNN Wire, “The Senate is set to vote Thursday on a controversial amendment pushed by Senate Republicans that would allow employers to opt out of health care coverage they disagree with on moral grounds. The so-called ‘conscience’ amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, is the Senate Republicans’ response to the simmering controversy over a recent Obama administration decision to mandate the kind of health care coverage provided by religious employers. ‘This bill would just simply say that those health care providers don’t have to follow that mandate if it violates their faith principles,’ stated an early February press release from Blunt. ‘This is about the First Amendment. It’s about religious beliefs. It’s not about any one issue.’” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]
Blunt Offered His Amendment As A Reaction To A Department of Health and Human Services Directive To Require All Employers To Offer Contraception Coverage In Health Plans. According to CNN Wire, “While Blunt’s amendment takes a broad approach, the main issue involves whether religious employers should have to include coverage for contraception in health plans offered to employees at affiliated institutions, such as hospitals. Earlier this month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius issued a directive that would have required all employers, including religious organizations, to include such coverage in health insurance offered to their employees. While churches were exempt, the mandate covered religious affiliated institutions.” [CNN Wire, 3/1/12]
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 Issued A Statement Supporting The Catholic Bishop’s Rejection Of The Contraception Mandate. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy released the following statement in support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: ‘Today, the Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the White House’s attempt to reform the contraception mandate. It is important that those with a moral objection have the freedom to practice their faith without interference from government intrusion. Religious freedom has always been a part of American history and it is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 2/10/12]
Cassidy Issued A Statement Regarding Obama’s Contraception Mandate Announcement. According to a press release by the Office of Congressman Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) released the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s announcement regarding his contraception mandate. ‘Americans fundamentally believe that government should not intervene in churches and religious groups. Recently, the President crossed that line by mandating churches and religious organizations provide free contraception and Plan B. Simply put, the President decided that implementing his health care law was more important than protecting religious liberty. ‘Even though the President slightly backtracked on his attack of religious freedom, he still did not go far enough. The new rule still mandates that religious organizations with moral objections facilitate access to contraception. Furthermore, the narrow exemption will create moral dilemmas for private business men and women of faith who do not wish to pay for contraception coverage. Our ultimate goal needs to be repealing the President’s health care law and replacing it with a responsible and constitutional alternative. No American should ever be forced to act against their religious beliefs.’’ [Office Of Bill Cassidy, 2/10/12]
Cassidy 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]
The Proposal Would Have Prevented School-Based Health Clinics From Being Able To Discuss Birth Control And Make Family Planning Referrals For Their Teenage Clients. According to the Times-Picayune, “School-based health clinics will still be able to discuss birth control and make family planning referrals for their teen-age clients, if action by a Senate committee stands. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee refused Wednesday to approve House Bill 2393 sponsored by Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, which would have further restricted services in about 20 school-based clinics.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]
The Proposed Legislation For Physicians To Limit Birth Control And Make Family Planning Referrals For Their Teen-Age Clients Failed To Pass. According to the Times-Picayune, “School-based health clinics will still be able to discuss birth control and make family planning referrals for their teen-age clients, if action by a Senate committee stands. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee refused Wednesday to approve House Bill 2393 sponsored by Rep. Shirley Bowler, R-River Ridge, which would have further restricted services in about 20 school-based clinics. The panel voted 5-1 to defer the bill, which means it won’t likely come up for discussion again this session.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]
1997: Cassidy Opposed Failed Bill That Would Have Banned School Health Centers From Referring Or Counseling Any Student For “Contraceptive[s] Or Abortifacients.” In 1997, Dr. Bill Cassidy, not then a member of the Louisiana legislator, opposed a bill that would have banned school health centers from referring or counseling any student to use contraceptives or “abortifacients.” According to the Legislative Fiscal Office, “The proposed law would prohibit health centers in schools from referring or counseling any student relative to contraceptive or abortifacients [sic] drugs, devices, or other similar products. The bill would further require: 1) any consent form that requires the signature of the parent or guardian of a student to state the prohibitions; 2) a contact person be named on the consent forms, relative to reporting violations, post signs acknowledging prohibitions; 3) all contracts and proposals for establishing school-based health centers must recite the law relative to the prohibitions.” The bill was passed in the House, by a vote of 74 to 19. The bill was then referred to the Senate Health & Welfare committee, where it died. [Bill Text, House Bill 2393; Roll Call, 5/29/97; Bill History, 5/30/97; Legislative Fiscal Office, 6/10/97]
Cassidy Opposed The Proposed Uniform Consent Form Because It Limited Physicians To Provide Needed Care To School Children. According to The Advocate, “The (proposed) uniform consent form includes language that limits the ability of health-care professionals to refer for medically necessary services that school health centers cannot provide,’ the minority report said. The minority report is signed by Irons, state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Dr. Bill Cassidy , Dr. Gary Wiltz and state adolescent and school-health program director Sylvia Sterne. ‘We believe it is inappropriate for a small group of lay people to restrict the ability of licensed physicians, nurses and mental health counselors to provided needed care to unserved and underserved school children,’ the group said. The group said a locally elected school board is the appropriate body to approve clinic services and it is also the appropriate body to develop its own consent form ‘consonant with the needs of its population and the mores of its community.’” [Advocate, 7/3/97]
Cassidy Said The Legislation Prevented Doctors From Discussing Teenage Health Issues And Eliminated “Comprehensive Health Care For Students Who Might Otherwise Not Have It.” According to the Times-Picayune, “Public health providers said the additional restrictions would put them in serious dilemmas. Dr. Bill Cassidy, an adolescent health doctor with the Louisiana State University Medical Center in Baton Rouge, said the bill thwarts local decisions about the health centers, prevents doctors from discussing some important teen-age health issues, and in effect, eliminates comprehensive health care for students who might otherwise not have it. ‘As a conservative Republican doctor, I am amazed conservatives support this bill,’ he said.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]
Cassidy Wanted The Decision To Approve Clinic Services To Be Made By A Locally Elected School Board. According to The Advocate, “The (proposed) uniform consent form includes language that limits the ability of health-care professionals to refer for medically necessary services that school health centers cannot provide,’ the minority report said. The minority report is signed by Irons, state health officer Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Dr. Bill Cassidy, Dr. Gary Wiltz and state adolescent and school-health program director Sylvia Sterne. ‘We believe it is inappropriate for a small group of lay people to restrict the ability of licensed physicians, nurses and mental health counselors to provided needed care to unserved and underserved school children,’ the group said. The group said a locally elected school board is the appropriate body to approve clinic services and it is also the appropriate body to develop its own consent form ‘consonant with the needs of its population and the mores of its community.’” [Advocate, 7/3/97]
Cassidy Said That As A “As A Conservative Republican Doctor, I Am Amazed Conservatives Support This Bill.” According to the Times-Picayune, “Public health providers said the additional restrictions would put them in serious dilemmas. Dr. Bill Cassidy, an adolescent health doctor with the Louisiana State University Medical Center in Baton Rouge, said the bill thwarts local decisions about the health centers, prevents doctors from discussing some important teen-age health issues, and in effect, eliminates comprehensive health care for students who might otherwise not have it. ‘As a conservative Republican doctor, I am amazed conservatives support this bill,’ he said.” [Times-Picayune, 6/12/97]
Cassidy Applauded The Supreme Court’s Decision To “Uphold Religious Freedom.” According to a press release by the office of Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold religious liberty in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The case focused on whether the government can force business owners to comply with mandates that violate their religious faith. Dr. Cassidy released the following statement: ‘Freedom of religion and our First Amendment rights must be protected and respected. The President and congressional Democrats supported this federal mandate, which conflicts with Louisiana values. It’s not the government’s responsibility to tell business owners the extent of which they can practice their faith in everyday business decisions. I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to stop Washington bureaucrats from taking away this religious liberty. This is a sacred freedom that must be preserved.” [Office of Bill Cassidy, 6/30/14]
Cassidy Was “Proud To Support Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom.” On his official Facebook account, Cassidy posted an image of him and the following text, “Proud to support Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom. I Support Religious Freedom For All.’’ [Bill Cassidy Facebook, 6/30/14]
Cassidy Was “Pleased” That The Supreme Court Agreed To Take The Hobby Lobby Case. According to the Times-Picayune, “In the new case, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether corporations can opt out of a mandated coverage by the Affordable Care Act -- contraception -- based on their moral or religious objections. The court is considering two separate lawsuits. One is by Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain, which won a lower court ruling that said it did not have to provide birth control coverage to its 13,000 full-time employees. The other case from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of Pennsylvania, which lost in the lower courts on its attempt to bar contraceptive health care services for about 950 workers. […] Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are likely in late March, with a final ruling expected by the end of June. The Supreme Court announced it would take the case on Tuesday. Reps. John Fleming, R-Minden, and Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, said they are pleased the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.” [Times-Picayune, 11/26/13]
Cassidy Urged The Supreme Court To Protect “Religious Liberty” In Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. According to a press release by the office of Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, “Today, Congressman Bill Cassidy, M.D. reacted to the decision by the Supreme Court to review Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which centers on whether Washington can force business owners to comply with mandates that violate their religious faith. He released the following statement: ‘Religious liberty and the right to conscience are clearly protected by the Constitution. That should be respected by our government. Unfortunately, President Obama and Senate Democrats have not shown that respect. Therefore, I urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and protect the religious freedom of all Americans.’’ [Office of Bill Cassidy, 11/26/13]
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]
Cassidy Opposed Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest, Was “Staunchly Pro-Life.” According to a blog by Greg Sargent in the Washington Post, “In Georgia, three top Senate candidates — Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston — all co-sponsored the ‘Sanctity of Human Life Act,’ which gives ‘full human rights to human zygotes from the moment of fertilization,’ as Laura Bassett puts it. In Iowa, state senator Joni Ernst — who is running against Dem Bruce Braley — supported a ‘Personhood’ amendment to the state constitution. In Michigan, Terri Lynn Land didn’t mention rape or incest as exceptions to her anti-abortion stance in an interview with Politico. In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy — who is running against Mary Landrieu — was marked down by the Louisiana Family Forum as opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest (a spokesperson said he is ‘staunchly pro-life’).” [Washington Post, 4/15/14]
Cassidy Opposed Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to The Advocate, “Given that abortion is always a hotly debated topic in Louisiana and that some people vote primarily on their abortion views, it seemed like a good time to clarify where the delegation stands on exceptions for abortions in cases of rape and incest. It turns out that, out of the seven [Louisiana] anti-abortion Republicans, only Rep. Rodney Alexander, of Quitman, seemingly believes in allowing for abortion exceptions in cases of rape and incest. They did not respond to questions about the topic this week, but U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, both opposed abortion without any such exceptions when they first ran for U.S. Senate and state Senate, respectively.” [Advocate, 8/26/12]
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]
2014: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “permanently prohibit[ed] the use of federal funds, facilities or staff to provide abortion coverage and services, except in cases of rape or incest and for saving the life of the mother.” The House passed by a vote of 227 to 188; as of the end of February, 2014, the Senate had taken no substantive action on the measure. [House Vote 30, 1/28/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
Cassidy Voted In Favor Of H.AMDT.509, An Amendment Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. On November 7, 2009, Cassidy voted in favor of H.AMDT.509, an amendment Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services. According to the Congressional Record Service, the legislation amended H.R.3963, the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, and ‘prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. Amendment does allow individuals, who receive affordability credits or not, to separately purchase with their own funds, plans that cover elective abortions. Finally, the amendment clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.’ On November 7, 2009, the House agreed to the amendment. [H.AMDT.509, 11/7/13]
Cassidy Supported Blocking Taxpayer Funded Abortions And Tried Passing Legislation To Discourage Abortion By Making Pregnant Mothers Carry Their Children To Term. According to Cassidy for Congress via Archive.org, “The Right To Life: As a physician, Bill Cassidy knows every human life is a blessing deserving equal protection under the law from womb to natural death. He is a co-author of legislation to block taxpayer funding of abortion and is working to pass legislation to discourage abortion by helping pregnant mothers carry their children to term and care for their children after birth.” [Cassidy for Congress via Archive.org, Captured on 10/1/10]
Cassidy Outlined Pledge To America Healthcare Plan; Included Ban On Federal Funding For Abortion. According to a press release from Cassidy, obtained via Project Vote Smart, “To strengthen the patient-physician relationship by, among other things, increasing the use and usefulness of health savings accounts -- health savings accounts that put the patient firmly in control of her health care dollar, and, in so doing, allows her to make the decisions that are important for her health, but also for her finances. We will ensure access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions. And lastly, we will join with 70 percent of the American people that desire to ban federal funding for abortions.” [Project Vote Smart, 9/23/10]
Cassidy Said That Despite Obama’s Promises Otherwise, Federal Funds Were “Clearly” Going To Abortion Providers Through ObamaCare Grants. According to NE News Now, “Cary Bogue, founder of Project Wildfire, says the pro-life website and Congressman Cassidy are asking President Obama to ‘keep his promise’ to not provide federal funds to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. ‘Congressman Cassidy has spoken out strongly against the award of these ‘navigator’ grants, which total $650,000, to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America,’ says Bogue. Despite Obama’s promise during the healthcare debate, says Cassidy, federal funds are clearly going to abortion providers through ObamaCare grants.” [NE News Now, 8/29/13]
2013: Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Would Prohibit Providing Federal Education Funds To State Or Local Agencies That Indirectly Provided Students With Abortions, Abortion-Related Materials Or Referrals, Or Directions To Abortion Services. In March 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit the provision of federal education funding to state or local educational agencies that make health services available to students through school-based health centers, unless those centers certify that they [would] not provide students with abortions, abortion-related materials or referrals, or directions to abortion services.’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 1122; Congressional Actions, 3/13/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 3/21/13]
2013: Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill To Ban Funding Abortions With Federal Funds. In May 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would prohibit] the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. [Would prohibit] federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 7; Congressional Actions, 5/14/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 5/14/13]
Cassidy Co-Sponsored The Protect Life Act, Which Would Prohibit Federal Funds From Covering Any Health Plan That Covered Abortion Under ACA. In January 2011, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to be used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)’ The House adopted the bill by a vote of 251 to 172. The Senate took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 358; Congressional Actions, 1/20/11]
2011: Cassidy Voted To Bar The Use Of Federal Funding To Purchase Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion Services. In October 2011, Cassidy voted fora bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “barred the use of federal funds to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion services. The bill also would [have] require[d] that insurance companies offering plans on state exchanges that cover abortion services also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion services. It also would [have] bar[red] federal agencies and state or local entities that receive funding under the health care overhaul law from discriminating against health care entities that refuse to provide abortions or training related to abortions.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 172; however, no substantive action on the measure was taken by the Senate. [House Vote 789, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 358]
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]
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]
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]
Cassidy Was A Co-Sponsor Of The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” Which Changed IRS Tax Codes And Deduction Of Medical Expenses Only If Abortion Was In The Case Of Rape, Incest, Or Endangerment Of Life. According to the Washington Post, “But one thing the IRS probably isn’t very good at is deciding whether or not a woman has been raped. That’s why some provisions of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ don’t make a whole lot of sense. H.R. 7, which is sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), would change the tax code so that individuals may only deduct medical expenses related to abortion in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of life. That provision seems pretty innocuous until you stop and ask: Who’s supposed to decide when a medical expense is related to a pregnancy caused by rape or incest? Supporters of H.R. 7 — the bill has 164 co-sponsors, including 11 women and four Democrats — would give that authority to the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, that’s right. The same organization that has been vilified for targeting certain organizations with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names to help determine whether they qualify for tax-exempt status will be able to target individuals to make sure that they’re not improperly claiming deductions for an abortion that wasn’t due to rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.” [Washington Post, 1/22/14]
No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act Would Change U.S. Tax Code To Establish That “Individuals May Only Deduct Medical Expenses Related To Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or Endangerment Of Life.’ According to the Washington Post, “But one thing the IRS probably isn’t very good at is deciding whether or not a woman has been raped. That’s why some provisions of the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ don’t make a whole lot of sense. H.R. 7, which is sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), would change the tax code so that individuals may only deduct medical expenses related to abortion in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of life.” [Washington Post, 1/22/14]
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]
Cassidy Voted To Make It A Requirement For Women To Receive Information About The Way The Abortion They Were About To Receive Could Affect The Child. In June 2007, Cassidy voted for a bill that, according to its Title on Legiscon, “Provides relative to a Woman’s Right to Know as relates to informed consent requirements. […] To amend and reenact R.S. 40:1299.35.6(C)(1)(a) and to enact R.S. 40:1299.35.6(A)(5)(d) and (B)(1)(g) and (h), relative to the performance of abortions; to provide for informed consent requirements; to provide for publication of materials by the Department of Health and Hospitals; and to provide for related matters.’ Passed Senate on June 19, 2007 by a vote of 34 to 2. Subsequently passed the House on June 26, 2007 by a vote of 98 to 1. The bill was signed by the Governor and became state law. [HB 25, 6/19/07]
Cassidy Tweeted That Because Babies Are Given Anesthesia When Their Mothers Undergo Surgery, Fetuses Undergoing Abortion Feel Pain. According to Twitter, Cassidy’s personal account @BillCassidy, tweeted, “Anesthesia is given to babies for fetal surgery around the same age that some lives are taken by abortions. #theyfeelpain.” [Bill Cassidy Official Twitter, 11/8/13]
Cassidy Said He Was Pro-Life Because He Believed Inflicting Pain On The Unborn Violated “A Culture Of Life” Promoted By The Founding Fathers Who Wanted “Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness.” According to a video of Bill Cassidy obtained via the official Cassidy Press YouTube channel, “Everyday in Congress, I am guided by Louisiana values, not by those of Washington, D.C. There’s a reason the founders spoke of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; because it starts with defending and promoting a culture of life. For me as a doctor, this means prolonging life, and relieving pain. It violates this culture of life to inflict pain on the unborn. That’s why I am pro-life, and why I support pro-life legislation.” [Cassidy Press YouTube, 5/19/14]
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 Spoke At A Louisiana Life March Rally Against Abortion. According to the Times-Picayune, “A few thousand people attended the Louisiana Life March in Baton Rouge to rally against abortion on Saturday afternoon (Jan. 18). Activists walked through the city’s downtown before gathering in front of the steps of the Louisiana State Capitol for a rally. The theme of the event was ‘Adoption: The Power of Possibility’ and speakers urged people to put a children up for adoption rather than electing to have an abortion. They also pushed families to consider adopting a child or becoming a foster parent. Several politicians attended the event. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, spoke at the rally. State Rep. Lenar Whitney, R-Houma, former U.S. Rep. Anh ‘Joseph’ Cao, R-New Orleans, and U.S. Senate candidate Robert Maness were also present.” [Times-Picayune, 1/18/14]
Cassidy Said That No Matter The Circumstances Of A Pregnancy, A Woman Could Make It “Something Really Great.” According to a video of Cassidy speaking at an abortion rally obtained via the Times-Picayune, Cassidy said, “There will be many more generations because originally, that mother chose life. She’s the hero. And look around at yourselves; you’re the heroes too, because you choose life. You choose to encourage her. In her desperate situation, you will say, ‘There is an option, and there’s an option that is positive. And whatever the circumstances of the pregnancy, you can make it something really great.” [Times-Picayune, 1/18/14]
Cassidy Co-Sponsored Bill That Made It A Crime To Transport A Minor To Another State To Get An Abortion. In February 2013, Cassidy co-sponsored a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[would amend] the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion ([would deem] such transporting to be a de facto abridgment of the right of a parent under any law in the minor’s state of residence that [required] parental involvement in the minor’s abortion decision). [Would make] an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. […] [Would impose] a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who [performed] or [induced] an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements. [Would require] such physician to give 24-hour actual or constructive notice to a parent of the minor seeking an abortion, subject to certain exceptions.’ The House took no substantive action. [Congressional Research Service, H.R. 732; Congressional Actions, 2/14/13; Congressional Cosponsors, 2/15/13]
2007: Cassidy Voted To Ban Partial Birth Abortions. In June 2007, Cassidy voted for a Senate bill that, according to its Title on Legiscon, “Provides with respect to partial birth abortion. […] To enact R.S. 14:32.10 and R.S. 40:1299.35.17, and to repeal R.S. 14:32.9 and R.S. 40:1299.35.16, relative to partial birth abortion; to prohibit partial birth abortion; to provide for criminal penalties; to provide for a civil action for damages; to provide for a medical review of the conduct of the physician; to provide for definitions; to provide for an effective date; and to provide for related matters.’ The bill passed the Senate on 6/25/07 with a vote of 36 to 0. The bill passed the House on 6/26/07 with a vote of 104 to 0. The bill was signed by the Governor and became law. [HB 614, 7/12/07]
2011: Cassidy Voted To Eliminate Funding For Planned Parenthood In The 2011 Continuing Appropriations Bill. In February 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill that would have, cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. According to Roll Call, “More than a dozen House Republicans confirmed Wednesday that their vote on any long-term continuing resolution could well hinge on whether it includes language to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which offers abortion services. […] Michael Steel, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), declined Wednesday to discuss how leadership is planning to deal with conservative concerns over abortion funding. ‘At this point, our position is [to support] H.R. 1, which includes those provisions,’ Steel said in a statement. ‘We’re still waiting to see a plan to cut spending and help create jobs from the Democrats who run Washington.’’ The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 189. The Senate extensively amended the legislation and passed the bill, but it was not taken up again by the House. [House Vote 147, 2/19/11; Roll Call, 3/10/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2011: Cassidy Voted To Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest, Or Life Of The Mother. In May 2011, Cassidy voted for a bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ‘prohibit[ed] federal funding for abortion services, except in cases of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is endangered. It would [have] modif[ied] tax breaks given for health insurance coverage to exclude coverage for abortion, prohibit[ed] federal medical facilities from providing abortion services.’ The House passed the bill with a vote of 251 to 175. The Senate took no subsequent action. [House Vote 292, 5/4/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/11]
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]
2011: Cassidy Voted To Bar Funds In The 2012 Agricultural Appropriations Bill From Being Used For The Drug RU-486. In June 2011, Cassidy voted for an amendment to the 2012 agriculture appropriations bill which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “bar the use of funds in the bill for the abortion drug mifepristone, also known as RU-486.’ The House passed the amendment by a vote of 240 by 176. The bill was amended by the Senate, which removed the provision. [House Vote 445, 6/16/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2112; Congressional Quarterly, 6/16/11]