¶ Kelly Ayotte Opposed Reproductive Rights
¶ Ayotte Supported New Hampshire’s Abortion Law
Ayotte Said “There Is No Abortion Ban In New Hampshire.” According to NH Journal, “Republican candidate for governor Kelly Ayotte turned the tables on Democrats over the abortion issue Tuesday, declaring their claims of a Granite State abortion ban ‘just not true’ and challenging the fundamental premise of their attacks on the GOP. […] Asked about the attacks by radio host Jack Heath Tuesday, Ayotte said that on the abortion issue in New Hampshire, ‘Democrats love to spread falsehoods.’ ‘There is no abortion ban in New Hampshire. They’ve put that forward, and it’s just not true. And it’s actually dangerous for women’s health. Our current law actually aligns us with a majority of the states in addressing late-term abortion,’ Ayotte said.” [NH Journal, 7/25/23]
¶ Ayotte Said She Supported A 20 Week Abortion Ban But Backed Away When It Became Politically Problematic; Eventually Voted For Ban
2013: Ayotte Cosponsored A 20 Week Abortion Ban Bill.
2013: Ayotte Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act In The 113th Congress. [Congressional Record, 11/07/13]
Politico: Ayotte Helped Lead Fight To Bring 20 Week Ban To The Floor In 2014. According to Politico, “‘Late-term abortions are obviously something that the American people don’t agree with. So I am looking at the bill and it’s up to the leader whether he brings it to the floor. But I’ve previously been against late-term abortions,’ said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who in 2014 worked with Graham to pressure then-Majority Leader Harry Reid in putting the bill up for a vote, citing polls that show support for a 20-week abortion ban.” [Politico, 6/10/15]
2014: Ayotte Expressed Her Support For A 20 Week Abortion Ban Bill
2014: Ayotte Signed A Letter Urging A Vote On The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, A Bill That Would Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks. According to the National Right To Life Newsletter, “Thirty-three Senators have signed a letter urging Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV.) to bring up legislation sponsored by South Carolina Senator Sen. Lindsey Graham. (See nrlc.cc/1mOZCmb and nrlc.cc/1mPd7Co and the story on page one.) ‘It is time that Congress acts to bring the United States out of the fringe when it comes to late term abortions,’ New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who circulated the Dear Colleague letter, said in a statement at the time. ‘I urge Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would bring us closer to international norms and the views of the American people.’” [National Right To Life, 5/1/14]
June 2015: Ayotte Did Not Co-Sponsor The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – A 20 Week Abortion Ban – In The 114th Congress
June 2015: Ayotte Was Not A Co-Sponsor Of The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act In The 114th Congress. According to the Independent Journal Review, “What’s a social conservative to do when one of your strongest advocates suddenly goes mum? Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is widely considered prime 2016 Republican running mate material, and the first-term senator has a record that’s a social conservative’s dream. She was elected to the Senate in 2010 with the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List’s endorsement, and is listed as one of the organization’s ‘National Pro-Life Women Leaders.’ Fittingly, the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation gave Ayotte a ‘Pro-Choice Score’ of 0 in 2014, for voting against NARAL’s preferred pro-choice legislation and federal nominees. Despite her record, Ayotte isn’t a co-sponsor of Senator Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which the 2016 Republican presidential field has rallied behind. Graham’s bill allows for exceptions in cases of rape or incest, matching the bill passed by the House of Representatives in May.” [Independent Journal Review, 6/19/15]
Ayotte Backed Away From 20-Week Ban Due To Upcoming Election
June 2015: Independent Journal Review: Ayotte’s Predicted Tough Re-election “May Explain Why She Is Demurring From Supporting” The Bill. According to the Independent Journal Review, “Ayotte faces reelection next year in what is widely predicted to be a tough race in the traditionally purple state, which may explain why she is demurring from supporting Graham’s trackless legislation. Yet New Hampshire’s responsible for less than 1 percent of abortions in the United States and has only 13 abortion providers, up from 11 in 2008. The state’s abortion rate is also consistently below the national average, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.” [Independent Journal Review, 6/19/15]
…But She Effectively Voted For It Later That Year.
September 2015: Ayotte Effectively Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions After 20-Weeks Gestation. In September 2015, Ayotte 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. The House had earlier passed the bill. [Senate Vote 268, 9/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
¶ Ayotte Repeatedly Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
¶ 2015: Ayotte Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
2015: Ayotte Voted For A Bill That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Ayotte effectively 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 Congressional Quarterly said 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. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 52 to 47. The bill heads back to the House. President Obama has said he will veto. [Senate Vote 329, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15]
2015: Ayotte Effectively Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Ayotte 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: Ayotte Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In May 2015, Ayotte voted for barring all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. According to CNN, “The fight over funding for Planned Parenthood shifts to a must-pass government funding measure this fall after a procedural vote in the Senate on legislation that would have barred all federal funds for the group failed on Monday.” The vote was on cloture the Motion to Proceed; the motion was rejected by a vote of 53 to 46. [Senate Vote 262, 8/3/15; CNN, 8/4/15]
Ayotte Said “I Do Not Support The Use Of Taxpayer Dollars To Fund A Private Organization That Performs Hundreds Of Thousands Of Abortions Each Year And Harvests Babies' Body Parts.” According to a press release by the Office of New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, “U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today voted in favor of a procedural motion to advance legislation introduced by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) that would redirect federal funding for Planned Parenthood to community health centers. She released the following statement: ‘I do not support the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a private organization that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year and harvests babies' body parts, which is why I voted to redirect funding to community health centers that provide women's health services such as cancer screenings, mammograms, and contraceptives.’” [Office of New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, 8/3/15]
Ayotte Declined To Say Whether She Would Support A House Budget Package That Would Defund Planned Parenthood. According to The Hill, “A politically charged budget package moving in the House this week is creating a headache for Senate Republicans. The package, which under budget reconciliation rules cannot be filibustered, will block money for Planned Parenthood and gut ObamaCare. The problem: It’s unclear whether Senate Republicans can gather the 51 votes needed to approve it. Three Senate Republicans are on record as opposing an end to federal funding for Planned Parenthood. […] Murkowski, Collins and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) in September all voted against proceeding to a short-term government funding measure that would have cut off Planned Parenthood, further muddying the issue. […] Ayotte, Collins, Kirk and Murkowski declined to say Tuesday whether they would vote for the House package. […] ‘I have to look at it,’ said Ayotte, who on Monday learned Democrats had recruited Gov. Maggie Hassan to challenge her next year. The Ayotte-Hassan race is expected to be one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the cycle.” [The Hill, 10/7/15]
2011: Ayotte Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
April 2011: Ayotte Voted For A Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood. In April 2011, Ayotte voted for prohibiting any funds appropriated in the recently-passed bill funding the government through the end of fiscal year 2011 from being made available to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates. The vote was on a continuing resolution that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[d]irect[ed] the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473 (Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011) to prohibit any funds under such Act from being made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.” That change would have been made prior to sending H.R. 1473 – which had already passed both the House and Senate – to the president. The Senate rejected the concurrent resolution by vote of 42 to 58. [Senate Vote 60, 4/14/11; CRS Summary, H Con Res 36, 4/14/11]
March 2011: Ayotte Voted For Eliminating FY2011 Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood. In March 2011, Ayotte voted for prohibiting any funds in the remainder of FY2011 from being used to fund Planned Parenthood. The provision was part of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until the end of FY 2011 that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The bill was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56. The bill number was later used as the vehicle for another piece of legislation. [Senate Vote 36, 3/9/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/11]
2011: Ayotte On A Vote To Defund Planned Parenthood, Community Health Centers: “Our Country Is In A Fiscal Crisis. Everyone Is Going To Have To Make Sacrifices.” According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Cutting off federal funds for Planned Parenthood and Title X aid to community health centers will harm thousands of New Hampshire women, U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said before an expected vote Tuesday. […] U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said in an e-mail response, ‘Our country is in a fiscal crisis. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit and over $14 trillion in debt. Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices, including many private organizations that have relied on federal resources.’” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/9/11]
¶ 2010: Ayotte Said Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned
2010: Ayotte Said Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “Ayotte said the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion should be overturned, but states should regulate abortion rather than adopt a constitutional change.” [Nashua Telegraph, 8/20/10]
- 2009: Ayotte Would Not Say If She Believed Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. According to the Union Leader, “But she would not say whether she personally believes that the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing abortion should be overturned because, she said, the issue has been decided and will not be taken up in the Senate. She said she opposes federal funding for abortions.” [Union Leader, 9/28/09]
¶ 2005: Ayotte Defended NH’s Parental Notification Law
Ayotte Personally Argued The Parental Notification Case At The Supreme Court
2005: Ayotte Defended New Hampshire’s Abortion Parental Notification Law At The U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Boston Globe, “Hearing its first major abortion case in five years, the Supreme Court yesterday sharply questioned whether a New Hampshire law, which requires parental notification for a minor who wants an abortion, is legal even though it doesn't include an exception for a health-related emergency. New Hampshire's attorney general, Kelly A. Ayotte, defending the law, struggled to field the justices' bar-rage of questions about why the state legislature did not provide an exception for a pregnant minor whose health is in jeopardy. Ayotte answered that a combination of laws provides protection in emergency cases, but some of the justices who have supported abortion rights seemed doubtful.” [Boston Globe, 12/1/05]
Ayotte Was Pressed On The Law’s Lack Of A Health Exception And If Doctors Who Performed Emergency Abortions Would Be Subject To Prosecution
Court Justices Pressed Ayotte On The Law’s Lack Of A Health Exception. According to the Boston Globe, “At issue is the 2003 parental-notification law, narrowly approved by the New Hampshire Legislature. Proponents say it allows abortion without parental notification in life-threatening cases or with a judge's authorization. But opponents argue that it doesn't include a general exception allowing an abortion to protect the mother's health, a measure other states have in similar laws. Justice David H. Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, asked Ayotte whether the law explicitly allows a minor to have an abortion in a medical emergency. Ayotte acknowledged that there isn't an ‘expressed requirement of a health exception,’ but argued that it would be wrong to imply that the law would ‘infringe on the minor's health if that rare emergency case arises.’” [Boston Globe, 12/1/05]
- AUDIO: Justice Souter Challenged Ayotte’s Argument That A Doctor Who Performed An Emergency Abortion Would Not Be Subject To Civil Liability Or Criminal Prosecution: “What Do You Mean It Would Be Constitutionally Protected?” In oral arguments of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Justice Souter asked Ayotte, “…a doctor who performs an emergency abortion under such circumstances would not be subject to either criminal prosecution or civil liability because his or her conduct would not only be constitutionally protected but would be independently justifiable, and then you cite the competing harms. What do you mean when you say it would be constitutionally protected? […]What do you mean by constitutionally protected? What are you getting at?” [Oral Argument, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood Northern New England, Oyez.org]
Boston Globe: Lack Of Emergency Exception Was Considered The Pivotal Issue In Case. According to the Boston Globe, “Both sides believe that a crucial issue will be the law's lack of an emergency exception for a woman's health. The law requires a 48-hour waiting period for parental notification, which critics say could endanger the health of a woman seeking an abortion. In addition, the court will hear arguments about whether such a law can be challenged before it has gone into effect. The law has been blocked by a court injunction since it was due to go into effect in 2003.” [Boston Globe, 11/30/05]
AFTER VOTING AGAINST AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL MILITARY POLICY DENYING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST, AYOTTE CLAIMED TO SUPPORT IT
May 2012: Ayotte Voted Against Sen. Shaheen’s Proposal To Allow Military Health Insurance To Cover Abortion In Cases Of Rape Or Incest
2012: Ayotte Voted Against Allowing Military Health Insurance To Cover Abortion, If The Pregnancy Was The Result Of Rape Or Incest. In May 2012, Ayotte voted against an amendment, sponsored by Sen. Shaheen that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, brought “the Defense Department in line with federal policies by allowing military health insurance to cover abortion services for women in uniform who are the victims of rape or incest.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2013 defense authorization. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate Armed Services committee adopted the amendment by a vote of 16 to 10. The full committee later adopted the legislation. The full Senate later adopted the bill, but it was never signed into law. A related bill, which included the policy, was signed into law by President Obama. [Congressional Quarterly, 5/24/12; Congress.gov, S. 3254; Congress.gov, H.R. 4310; Congressional Actions, S. 3254]
December 2012: Ayotte Said She Supported Sen. Shaheen’s Proposal Repealing Military Policy That Denied Women In The Military Insurance Coverage For Abortion In Cases Of Rape And Incest
2012: Ayotte Supported Shaheen Amendment To Repeal Military Policy Denying Insurance Coverage For Abortion In Cases Of Rape Or Incest. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Sen. Jeanne Shaheen won a major legislative victory this week when House and Senate conferees approved repealing a 21-year-old policy that denied women in the military insurance coverage for abortion in cases of rape or incest. […]Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers supporting Shaheen's amendment. ‘While I strongly oppose abortion, I have also been clear that I support exceptions in cases when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest,’ Ayotte wrote several weeks ago.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 12/20/12]
¶ Ayotte Supported Exceptions To Contraceptive Insurance Requirements
¶ Ayotte Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Have Allowed Employers To Avoid ACA Requirements
2012: Ayotte Said Of Her Vote In Favor Of The Blunt Amendment: “Democrats Resorted To Misinformation In Their Attempts To Defeat The Measure.” According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Ayotte, a Republican who voted in favor of the Blunt amendment, said, ‘This is a simple matter of religious freedom. Respect for rights of conscience has historically been a bipartisan issue, and it was unfortunate that Democrats resorted to misinformation in their attempts to defeat the measure. This debate highlights the need to protect religious organizations from federal overreach, and I will keep standing up for religious liberty as I work to repeal the President's health care law.’” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/2/12]
Ayotte Was An Original Co-Sponsor Of The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Have Allowed Employers And Insurance Companies To Avoid ACA Requirements They Found Morally Objectionable. [Library of Congress List of Co-Sponsors, S. Amdt. 1520, S. 1813]
¶ Ayotte Supported Exceptions To The ACA Contraception Mandate
2014: Ayotte Said The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Affirmed Religious Liberties. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “A Supreme Court ruling Monday allowing business owners with religious objections to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees provoked sharp reactions from lawmakers and advocates in New Hampshire… […] U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the only Republican member of the state's congressional delegation, said the ruling affirms fundamental religious liberties, adding that Americans ‘shouldn't be forced to comply with government mandates that violate core principles of their faith.’” [Nashua Telegraph, 7/1/14]
2012: Ayotte Argued That Religious Universities And Hospitals Should Be Granted An Exemption From ACA Requirements For Contraception Coverage. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Catholic-based institutions say they will face tough decisions if they must start covering contraception and other reproductive services in their health care insurance to employees. […] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced this month it would include a narrow exemption for religious organizations that employ and serve those of the same faith. HHS said the exemption, part of President Barack Obama's health care law, would cover churches and might apply to primary and secondary religious schools, according to an HHS spokesman. But it would not apply to most religious universities or hospitals because they generally do not employ or serve primarily people who share their religious tenets and do not have as their purpose the teaching of religious values, the spokesman said. […] U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte said: ‘Religious freedom is a foundational American right, enshrined in the Constitution. Government must not force religious organizations to compromise core elements of their faith. The President pledged to honor conscience protections in America's health care policies, and I will continue to push for those rights as I pursue my efforts to repeal and replace the health care law.’” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 1/29/12]
¶ Ayotte Received SUPPORT FROM ANTI-CHOICE GROUPS
2010: Ayotte Said She Was “Proud To Have The Support Of” Anti-Choice Groups Like Susan B. Anthony List And The National Right To Life Committee. According to the Associated Press, “Kelly Ayotte (pronounced AY'-aht), the former attorney general who leads in the preprimary polls, said she was ‘proud to have the support’ of major anti-abortion groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and Susan B. Anthony List. She said she opposed abortion except in cases involving incest, rape or when the life of the mother is threatened.” [Associated Press, 9/10/10]
2010: Ayotte’s Campaign Website Touted Her Endorsements From Susan B. Anthony List, New Hampshire Citizens For Life, And New Hampshire National Right To Life.
[Kelly Ayotte for Senate, Archived 11/4/10]
2015: Ayotte Had A 100% Rating From The National Right To Life Committee And A 0% Rating From Both Planned Parenthood Action Fund And NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to IJReview, “The first-term senator from New Hampshire has a: *NARAL Pro-Choice America rating of 0% *Planned Parenthood Action Fund rating of 0% *National Right to Life Committee rating of 100% *2010 endorsement from the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List[.]” [IJReview, 8/19/15]
¶ 2009: Ayotte Said She Supported Rape And Incest Exceptions
2009: Ayotte Said She Opposed Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest, Or To Protect To Life Of The Mother. According to the Union Leader, “Ayotte, who became well-known in legal and political circles for defending the state's former parental notification law before the U.S. Supreme Court, said in the interview she considers herself ‘pro-life,’ supporting abortion ‘only in cases of rape, incest or a medical emergency such as where the life of the mother is at issue.’” [Union Leader, 9/28/09]
¶ Kelly Ayotte Was Bad For Women
- Ayotte voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, and introduced legislation that suggested that pay discrimination did not actually exist.
- After her vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act, Ayotte introduced equal pay legislation that was “nearly identical” to the Paycheck Fairness Act.
- Ayotte repeatedly voted to defund Planned Parenthood.
- Ayotte introduced a bill to counter Sen. Gillibrand’s proposal to remove military sexual assault cases from the chain of command and stressed that military sexual assault was not just a women’s issue.
- Ayotte argued unsuccessfully before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of parental notification law that lacked emergency health exceptions for minors. She appeals to the Supreme Court over the objections of New Hampshire’s governor and anti-choice groups credit her for going “the extra mile.”
- In 2014 Ayotte led an effort to encourage manufacturers of contraception to apply for over-the-counter approval from the FDA. Opponents to Ayotte’s effort said it would limit access and increase cost because many over-the-counter health options are not covered by insurance.
- Ayote’s husband’s only state level political donation went to to a candidate for State Senate who called for defunding Planned Parenthood and womens’ rural health clinics.
¶ Ayotte Voted To Block The Paycheck Fairness Act Four Times Before Introducing Her Own, “Nearly Identical” Bill That FAiled To Pass
¶ Ayotte Voted To Block The Paycheck Fairness Act Four Times
2015: Ayotte Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In March 2015, Ayotte voted against an amendment to the Senate’s FY 2016 budget resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] create[d] a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to equal pay policies.” Specifically, according to a press release from Senator Barbara Mikulski, “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Dean of the Senate women and a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today was joined by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in speaking out on the Senate floor calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. Senator Mikulski introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Senate budget bill currently being debated.” The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 54. [Senate Vote 82, 3/24/15; Press Release – Office Of Senator Barbara Mikulski, 3/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In September 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the legislation, which required 60 votes to pass. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 40. [Senate Vote 262, 9/15/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In April 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the Congressional Research Service, the legislation would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid EPA [Equal Pay Act] liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the legislation, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 103, 4/9/14; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13]
2012: Ayotte Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. In June 2012, Ayotte voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, “would authorize [Equal Pay Act] class actions and ‘such compensatory and punitive damages as may be appropriate.’” The vote was on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill; it failed, 52-47. [Senate Vote 115, 6/5/12; Congressional Research Service, 6/1/12]
¶ April 2015: Ayotte Introduced The Workplace Advancement Act, Which Suggested Women Only Feel Pay Discrimination Exists, Not That It Actually Does
2015: Ayotte, Fischer, Collins, Capito Introduced Workplace Advancement Act. According to the Huffington Post, “Republicans in Congress have taken a lot of heat over the past few years for repeatedly blocking Democrats' equal pay legislation, so this year GOP women senators are proposing a bill of their own to combat the gender wage gap. But the GOP's stripped-down version of the Paycheck Fairness Act has so far garnered nothing but eye rolls from across the aisle. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), joined by GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), introduced the Workplace Advancement Act last week, which would make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for talking to each other about their salaries. The retaliation provision is one of many in the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act, which would also require employers to report wage data broken down by gender to the federal government, set up negotiation skills training programs for women and girls, and help women sue for back pay once they realize they've been earning less than their male colleagues for the same work.” [Huffington Post, 4/14/15]
- Katie McDonough Column: Ayotte Pay Equity Proposal Suggests Women Only Feel Pay Discrimination Exists, Not That It Actually Does. In a column for Salon, Katie McDonough wrote, “But as Laura Bassett at the Huffington Post reported Tuesday, a coalition of Republican women has done the heretofore unthinkable and inched closer to acknowledging a problem might exist by introducing their own version of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure that Democrats have repeatedly tried, and repeatedly failed, to pass. But there are considerable differences between the two bills, the most recent of which is sponsored by Republican Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. The most significant among them is probably that the GOP proposal is toothless. The authors of the measure couldn’t even bring themselves to concede that pay discrimination exists, only that some women feel it exists. While the Democratic proposal is explicit about disparities between men and women’s earnings across income brackets and professions, the GOP bill simply states that ‘surveys suggest there is a concern among American women that gender-based pay discrimination still exists.’” [Salon, 4/14/15]
- Katie McDonough Column: Workplace Advancement Act Offers Women No Legal Recourse For Pay Discrimination. In a column for Salon, Katie McDonough wrote, “If that hasn’t gotten your feminist blood pumping for the Workplace Advancement Act, consider this: The bill offers no legal recourse to women who may want to sue their bosses after finding out that they’ve been compensated at a lower rate than their male colleagues. This is a predictable omission, considering that the top Republican critique of the Paycheck Fairness Act is that it’s bait for trial lawyers, a view shared by virtually every Republican running or looking to run in the 2016 primary. The Republican measure is a tepid endorsement of the ‘concern’ women may have about being discriminated against by their bosses. It also contains language stating that pay disparities are acceptable if they are about ‘merit’ or ‘any factor other than sex,’ which, as evidenced by the slippery and subtle sexism on display in the Ellen Pao case, can be a difficult thing to argue against. (The Paycheck Fairness Act makes exceptions for pay differences based on ‘education, training or experience.’) The primary thing the two bills have in common is language making it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who discuss salary information, and that’s about it. Cue the Beyoncé balloon drop! Let’s get Mitch McConnell to stand in front of that FEMINIST sign!” [Salon, 4/14/15]
¶ September 2015: Ayotte Introduced The Gender Advanced In Pay Act
2015: Ayotte Introduced The Gender Advanced In Pay Act, Which Would Address Gender Pay Discrimination. According to ThinkProgress, “On Tuesday, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) introduced the Gender Advancement in Pay (GAP) Act, a bill aimed at gender wage discrimination. While the full details of the bill aren’t yet available, some of the main provisions have been made public: It would tell the country’s employers that they must give men and women equal pay for equal work, while also stipulating that they can still give out merit pay; it would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for discussing pay or deciding not to disclose their salary histories; and it would create civil penalties for employers who discriminate in pay based on gender.” [ThinkProgress, 9/23/15]
¶ Ayotte’s Bill Was Nearly Identical To The Paycheck Fairness Act
Ayotte’s Bill Was “Nearly Identical” To The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which The Republicans Unanimously Blocked Multiple Times. According to ThinkProgress, “The bill’s elements look nearly identical to those in the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure backed by a number of Democrats in the House and Senate but unanimously blocked by Republicans multiple times. ‘It has some of the key provisions that the Paycheck Fairness Act has that are pretty important to addressing the pay gap,’ said Jessica Milli, a senior research associate at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR).” [ThinkProgress, 9/23/15]
Ayotte’s Bill Appeared To Be Nearly Identical To The Paycheck Fairness Act But Explicitly Protected Merit-Based Pay Discrepancies. According to Think Progress, “The bill’s elements look nearly identical to those in the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure backed by a number of Democrats in the House and Senate but unanimously blocked by Republicans multiple times. ‘It has some of the key provisions that the Paycheck Fairness Act has that are pretty important to addressing the pay gap,’ said Jessica Milli, a senior research associate at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR). […] Ayotte made it clear that part of her intention in introducing the bill was to protect employers’ ability to award merit pay, something she also emphasized when she introduced an amendment in last year’s vote-o-rama session. But merit pay would also be protected in the Paycheck Fairness Act. ‘It actually lists a merit-based system as one of the justifications for having a pay discrepancy,’ Milli noted. ‘There doesn’t really seem to be anything in the Paycheck Fairness Act that looks to me like it would limit employers’ ability to offer merit pay.’” [Think Progress, 9/23/15]
¶ Ayotte Said She Introduced The Bill To Protect Merit Pay Systems, Which Were Protected Under The Paycheck Fairness Act
Ayotte Said Part Of Her Intent In Introducing Her Bill Was To Protect Employers’ Ability To Award Merit Pay, Which Was Also Protected Under The Paycheck Fairness Act. According to ThinkProgress, “As with the Paycheck Fairness Act, Ayotte’s bill also narrows the definition of what factors other than gender can be used to defend pay gaps. A justifiable excuse would have to be ‘a business-related factor other than sex, including but not limited to education, training, or experience.’ Ayotte made it clear that part of her intention in introducing the bill was to protect employers’ ability to award merit pay, something she also emphasized when she introduced an amendment in last year’s vote-o-rama session. But merit pay would also be protected in the Paycheck Fairness Act.” [ThinkProgress, 9/23/15]
¶ Media Reaction
WGBH: Ayotte Introduction Of An Equal Pay Bill “Would Appear To Represent A Reversal For Ayotte,” Who Voted Against The Paycheck Fairness Act. According to WGBH, “Ayotte filed a bill, the Gender Advancement in Pay (GAP) Act, intended to help ensure that women receive equal pay. That would appear to represent a reversal for Ayotte, who has in the past argued that existing laws, if properly enforced, are sufficient to close the gender wage gap. Ayotte has cast votes joining her Republican colleagues in blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act. Yet her new bill is similar enough to that Democratic legislation for the liberal Think Progress web site to declare that ‘the bill's elements look nearly identical to those in the Paycheck Fairness Act.’” [WGBH, 9/28/15]
- WGBH: “It Will Be Worth Keeping An Eye On” The GAP Act’s “Progress, However, As Ayotte Fights For Crucial Women’s Votes In Her 2016 Re-Election Campaign.” According to WGBH, “Ayotte, however, describes her bill in a press release as similar to how she attempted to amend the Paycheck Fairness Act, when it was last debated in the Senate last year. As she did then, Ayotte says she wants to protect women who seek to discover and redress unfair wage differences, while protecting employers' ability to reward merit and offer flexible schedules. Ayotte did not secure any co-sponsors before filing the new bill, which has been assigned to a committee. It will be worth keeping an eye on its progress, however, as Ayotte fights for crucial women's votes in her 2016 re-election campaign, possibly against current New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan.” [WGBH, 9/28/15]
¶ Weak On Military Sexual Assault
In 2013, Ayotte introduced a bill to counter Sen. Gillibrand’s proposal to remove military sexual assault cases from the chain of command. Ayotte’s bill kept the decision to prosecute sexual assault cases with unit commanders. Ayotte’s proposal included an appeals process in cases in which a commander did not prosecute and provided for a special victims’ counsel. In 2014, Ayotte’s proposal passed the Senate unanimously.
¶ Co-Sponsored Weak Version Of Military Sexual Assault Legislation That Kept Cases Within The Chain Of Command
2014: Ayotte Co-Sponsored The Victims Protection Act To Prevent Military Sexual Assault Which Passed The Senate Unanimously. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “The U.S. Senate on Monday voted unanimously to adopt legislation cosponsored by U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire that seeks reforms to prevent military sexual assault and hold commanders accountable in handling reports of sexual assault. ‘So few things pass around this body unanimously, but it shows the bipartisan commitment we have to stopping this scourge of sexual assault in the military,’ Ayotte said in remarks delivered on the Senate floor after its 97-0 vote to approve the Victims Protection Act, which Ayotte, R-N.H., crafted along with U.S. Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Deb Fischer, R-Neb.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/11/14]
- Ayotte Was One Of Three Co-Sponsors The Bill. [Congress.gov, accessed 10/20/15]
- Ayotte’s Proposal Kept The Decision To Prosecute Sexual Assault Cases Within The Military Chain Of Command. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Ayotte's bill calls for several changes to how reports of sexual assault and other serious crimes are handled, but aims to maintain the military's chain of command by continuing to have unit commanders decide whether cases will be prosecuted.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/11/14]
- The Victims Protection Act Implemented An Appeals Process In Cases Where A Commander Did Not Prosecute. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “The bill also introduces a host of new checks on a commander's power to alleviate the fear that commanders will do nothing if a crime is reported. Should a commander not accept a JAG officer's recommendation to prosecute an alleged crime, that case would be immediately appealed to the civilian Secretary overseeing that branch of the armed forces. Should both the JAG officer and unit commander agree that a case is not worth pursuing, that commander's commanding officer or a general court martial would have to review the case as a final check against bias.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/11/14]
- The Victims Protection Act Provided For A Special Victims’ Counsel And Criminalized Retaliation. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Ayotte's proposals would also make retaliating against a victim a crime and would provide a Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal advice and assistance to service members who are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the armed forces.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/11/14]
2014: Ayotte Said That Congress “Will Make Sure Reforms Are Implemented, Commanders Are Held Accountable And Victims Are Treated With Dignity And Respect.” According to the Associated Press, “The Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill late Monday making big changes in the military-justice system to deal with sexual assault, including scrapping the nearly century-old practice of using a ‘good soldier defense’ to raise doubts that a crime has been committed. […] The Senate voted 55-45 for that farther-reaching bill, five votes short of the necessary 60. Though expressing certain reservations, the Pentagon had been generally accepting of the new bill. The House could act on the legislation as a stand-alone measure or incorporate it into the massive defense policy bill that it pulls together in spring. This ‘is not the end of this,’ Ayotte said in brief remarks on the Senate floor after the vote. ‘We will make sure reforms are implemented, commanders are held accountable and victims are treated with dignity and respect.” [Associated Press, 3/11/14]
2013: Ayotte Introduced Proposals To Keep Prosecutions Of Military Sexual Assault Within The Chain Of Command. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “New Hampshire's delegation to the United States Senate remains divided, much like the rest of the Senate, over whether reports of certain crimes, including sexual assault, in the military can be reported outside the chain of command. U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., has sponsored several measures that were included in a defense bill approved last month by the Senate Armed Services Committee. [H]er proposal calls for several changes to how reports of sexual assault and other serious crimes are handled, but aims to maintain the military's chain of command by continuing to have unit commanders decide whether cases will be prosecuted.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 7/28/13]
- Ayotte Claimed Her Proposal Included Checks On A Commander’s Power In Order To Alleviate Bias And Conflicts. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “However, Ayotte said her proposals introduce a host of new checks on a commander's power to alleviate that fear. For example, she said, should a commander not accept a JAG officer's recommendation to prosecute an alleged crime, that case would be immediately appealed to the civilian Secretary overseeing that branch of the armed forces. Should both the JAG officer and unit commander agree that a case is not worth pursuing, that commander's commanding officer or a general court martial would have to review the case as a final check against bias.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 7/28/13]
- Ayotte’s Proposal Criminalized Retaliation And Provided A Special Victims’ Counsel. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Ayotte's proposals would also make retaliating against a victim a crime and would provide a Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal advice and assistance to service members who are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the armed forces.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 7/28/13]
¶ Ayotte’s Bill Opposed A Gillibrand Proposal Which Took Sexual Assault Cases Out Of The Chain Of Command
Opposing Gillibrand Proposal Took Authority Out Of The Chain Of Command Due To “The Clear Bias And Inherent Conflicts Of Interest” In The Chain Of Command’s Prosecutorial Discretion. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “The Gillibrand proposal took the decision-making authority out of the chain of command based on a belief that victims of crimes such as sexual assault do not report incidents because of a ‘systemic fear that numerous victims of military sexual assault have described in deciding whether to report the crimes committed against them due to the clear bias and inherent conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command's current sole decision-making power over whether cases move forward to a trial,’ according to Gillibrand's website.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 7/28/13]
Ayotte Said She Was Undecided Whether She Would Support The Gillibrand Bill. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Shaheen and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, are sponsoring or co-sponsoring various legislation that would change how sexual assault cases are handled by the military. Shaheen is co-sponsor of a bill filed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would put decisions on how to handle sexual assault cases in the hands of military judges and juries, and take them outside the chain of command. […] Ayotte said she is undecided on whether she would support the Gillibrand bill if it comes before the Senate, but was unsatisfied with arguments against the bill presented by the military leaders at Tuesday's hearing. ‘I feel like we should get a clearer picture than what we got from the military today,’ she said.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 6/5/13]
2015: Ayotte Voted Against The Military Justice Improvement Act Which Would Have Overhauled Prosecution of Sexual Assault In The Military. In June 2015, Ayotte voted against taking the decision of prosecuting military sexual assault cases out of the chain of command and turning them over to independent uniformed prosecutors. According to the Times Union, “The Senate on Tuesday blocked legislation to overhaul prosecution of sexual assault crimes in the military. […] [Senator] Gillibrand’s Military Justice Improvement Act would have taken decisions on prosecuting sexual-abuse cases out of the chain of command and handed them over to independent uniformed prosecutors. The bill, technically an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, was a response to accusations that the current system of prosecutorial decision-making in the military puts too much power in the hands of commanders who are loath to go after accused subordinates, compounding the trauma of victims.” The vote was on an amendment; the Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 50 to 49. [Senate Vote 211, 6/16/15; Times Union, 6/16/15]
2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against Removing The Decision To Prosecute A Member Of The Military For Sexual Assault From The Chain Of Command. In March 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] require[d] decisions to prosecute felony-level crimes in the military, except those unique to the armed forces, be made by experienced commissioned officers who are not in the alleged perpetrator's chain of command.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the bill, which required 60 “Yea” votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 55 to 45. [Senate Vote 59, 3/6/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/14]
¶ Opposed ACA Contraception Mandate
2012: Ayotte Said The ACA’s Contraception Mandate Was “An Unprecedented Affront To Religious Liberty.” While appearing at Senate Press Conference, Sen. Kelly Ayotte said, “We have seen with the president’s health care bill and the regulations recently issued by Health and Human Services an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. And if we put religious institutions and faith-based organizations in the position where they have to comply with government mandates that violate the principles of their faith, it violates our First Amendment to the Constitution, and really, it’s an affront to what we stand for as Americans.” [Senate Press Conference via Federal News Service, 2/8/12]
2013: Ayotte Voted To Support Allowing Employers To Claim Exemptions To ACA’s Provisions On Health Care And Contraception Coverage On The Basis Of Religious And Moral Objections. In March 2013, Ayotte voted for an amendment that, according to the National Law Review, “would allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage on moral grounds.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care, in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 44 to 55. [Senate Vote 55, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/22/13; National Law Review, 3/25/13]
2013: Ayotte Voted To Oppose Protecting ACA’s Health Care And Contraception Coverage Provisions For Women. In March 2013, Ayotte voted against an amendment that, according to The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, would “protect women’s healthcare coverage and employer-provided contraceptive coverage authorized under the Affordable Care Act.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women’s access to health care, including primary and preventative health care, family planning and birth control, and employer-provided contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the Affordable Care Act.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 56 to 43. The underlying budget resolution later passed the Senate, but Congress had taken no further action on it as of September, 2013. [Senate Vote 54, 3/22/13; The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/21/13; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]
¶ Original Co-Sponsor Of The Blunt Amendment
2012: Ayotte Was An Original Cosponsor Of S.Amdt.1520, The Blunt Amendment. Ayotte was an original cosponsor of S.Amdt. 1520 to S.Amdt.1730, a Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) amendment to “amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.” [Congress.gov, accessed 10/17/15; Amendment Cosponsors, S.Amdt.1520]
2012: Ayotte Effectively Voted For The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Have Allowed Employers And Insurance Companies To Avoid ACA Requirements They Found Morally Objectionable. In March 2012, Ayotte effectively voted for the Blunt Amendment that, according to CNN Wire, “would establish that an entity refusing coverage on religious or moral grounds is not in violation of the law.” The vote was on a motion to table the amendment, with 48 senators voting against the motion – keeping the amendment alive – and 51 senators voting for the motion. [Senate Vote 24, 3/1/12; CNN Wire, 3/1/12]
- 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 Amendment Criticism
Palm Beach Post Editorial: Blunt Amendment Would “Subject Employees To The Beliefs Of Their Bosses,” Senators Who Voted For It “Nearly Lost Their Minds.” In an editorial, the Palm Beach Post wrote: “By just 51-48, the Senate defeated the eight-page amendment co-sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., under which all employers -- not just religious or religious-affiliated employers --- could refuse to include any coverage in medical insurance plans that is not ‘consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions...’ By just three votes, the self-proclaimed ‘world's greatest deliberative body’ decided that the United States won't subject employees to the beliefs of their bosses. Cynical as it sounds, you want to believe that those 48 senators voted that way because they knew that the measure would fail or that President Obama would veto it. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the Senate nearly lost its mind.” [Palm Beach Post, 3/4/12]
Palm Beach Post Editorial: Blunt Amendment Could Be Used To Deny Childhood Vaccines. In an editorial, the Palm Beach Post wrote: “Imagine, for example, the 125 employees who work for a woman who believes that childhood vaccines cause autism. If the Blunt amendment were law, it wouldn't matter that research has shown the claim to be bogus. If the Blunt amendment were law, the employees' rights to protect their children wouldn't matter. One person's misguided ‘moral conviction’ would matter.” [Palm Beach Post, 3/4/12]
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial: Blunt Amendment Was “Very Embodiment Of Overkill,” Raised Risks To Employees In Wide Range Of Areas Beyond Contraception, Including Pre-Natal Care And Childhood Vaccines. In an editorial, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette wrote: “The Blunt amendment (to a highway funding bill, by the way) said all insurance plans and employers -- not just religious ones -- could refuse to provide coverage of ‘specific items or services’ if the coverage would be ‘contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.’ Please note, Mr. Blunt said: ‘This amendment does not mention any procedure of any kind. The word 'contraception' is not in there because it's not about a specific procedure. It's about a faith principle that the First Amendment guarantees.’ Right. This isn't about women and birth control. This is about EVERYONE following their own conscience based on, um, whatever. Maybe Mr. Blunt was thinking of snake handlers who believe God protects the righteous from serpent bites. If they object to covering anti-venom for sinners who get chomped by a rattler, who is Barack Obama to tell them different? Childhood vaccinations? Perhaps your company's owners believe vaccines cause autism, so no way are they covering those shots. Pre-natal care? But you don't even have a husband, and your employer has a moral problem with procreation outside of marriage. No coverage for you. HIV testing? What are you, gay or something? This is a family-values company. Blood tranfusions? Not if your boss is a Jehova's Witness. Unlikely scenarios, yet every one of them would have been enabled by this amendment, the very embodiment of overkill. Republicans couldn't zoom in on their real targets (women and contraception), so they must have hoped for more luck with cluster bombs. If they barge into health care for EVERYONE, women can't complain they're being singled out, wink wink.” [Pittsburg Post-Gazette, 3/4/12]
¶ Voted Against Legislation Overturning The Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Decision
2014: Ayotte Effectively Voted Against Barring For-Profit Employers From Excluding Contraception, Or Any Other Federally Required Coverage, From The Health Coverage They Provide Their Employees. In July 2014, Ayotte effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would prohibit employers from refusing to cover contraception or any other type of health coverage guaranteed under federal law for their employees and dependents. It includes language that would ensure that exemptions for places of worship and religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations remain in place.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 43. [Senate Vote 228, 7/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14]
2014: Ayotte Voted Against Democrat Introduced Legislation That Would “Ensure Access To Contraception For Women Who Get Their Health Insurance From Companies With Religious Objections.” According to the Associated Press, “Republicans blocked a bill designed to override a Supreme Court ruling and ensure access to contraception for women who get their health insurance from companies with religious objections. The vote was 56-43 to move ahead on the legislation - dubbed the ‘Not My Boss’ Business Act’ by proponents - four short of the 60 necessary to proceed. […][Senate Minority Leader] McConnell joined with two Republican women, Fischer and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in backing separate legislation that would reaffirm current law on access to contraception and in calling for a Food and Drug Administration study on whether contraceptives could be sold over the counter without a prescription.” [Associated Press, 7/17/14]
2014: Ayotte Said The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Affirmed Religious Liberties. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “A Supreme Court ruling Monday allowing business owners with religious objections to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to employees provoked sharp reactions from lawmakers and advocates in New Hampshire… […] U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the only Republican member of the state's congressional delegation, said the ruling affirms fundamental religious liberties, adding that Americans ‘shouldn't be forced to comply with government mandates that violate core principles of their faith.’” [Nashua Telegraph, 7/1/14]
¶ Ayotte Introduced An Alternative Proposal That Would Prohibit Employers From Barring Employees’ Purchase Of Drugs Or Devices Approved By The FDA
Ayotte Proposed Alternative Would Make Clear That Employers Could Not Prevent Employees From Buying Birth Control, And Allowing Women To Pay For It With Pre-Tax Money. According to Congressional Quarterly, “GOP senators offered a competing proposal (S 2605) they said would clarify that employers cannot prohibit their employees from purchasing birth control. It also would ask the FDA to study whether contraceptives could be available without a prescription and allow women to set aside more money in special health savings accounts for out-of-pocket costs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14]
Ayotte: “We Can Preserve Access To Contraception And Protect Religious Freedom.” According to a press release by the Office of New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, “‘Our legislation makes it clear that no employer has the right to tell a woman she can't use contraceptives,’ said Senator Ayotte. ‘We can preserve access to contraception and protect religious freedom, and that's what our legislation makes clear.’” [Office of New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, 7/15/14]
¶ Supported PROPOSAL To Allow Over The Counter Birth Control, While Allowing Elimination Of Health Care Coverage Of Birth Control
In 2014, Sen. Kelly Ayotte led an effort to encourage manufacturers of contraception to apply for over-the-counter approval from the FDA. Ayotte argued her bill would not mandate that contraception be available over-the-counter – that the final determination would still reside with the FDA.
Opponents to Ayotte’s effort said it would limit access and increase cost because many over-the-counter health options are not covered by insurance.
Democrats led by Sen. Patty Murray introduced a response to Ayotte’s bill that would mandate that health plans would be required to cover over-the-counter contraception. Ayotte was unsupportive of Murray’s bill, claiming she was unsure what Murray’s bill was meant to accomplish separate from her own.
2015: Ayotte Introduced Legislation Encouraging Manufacturers Of Contraceptives To Apply For Applications With The FDA To Make Products Available Over-The-Counter. In an op-ed for Foster’s Daily Democrat, Ayotte wrote, “I, and several other senators, recently introduced the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act, which seeks to remove those barriers and expand women’s access to safe and effective contraceptives, made available to them around the clock and without a prescription. By encouraging manufacturers of contraceptives to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to move their products over-the-counter (OTC), our bill is a commonsense proposal that would allow women more convenient access to a wide-spectrum of safe and effective contraceptives. While some critics of the bill have falsely claimed it would eliminate insurance coverage, nothing in the bill changes current insurance coverage of contraceptives or prevents insurance companies from continuing to cover contraceptive costs.” [Foster’s Daily Democrat, 5/24/15]
- Ayotte Argued Her Bill Would Eliminate Restrictions On OTC Medications For Certain Health Plans. In an op-ed for Foster’s Daily Democrat, Ayotte wrote, “Additionally, our legislation would give women greater ability to save for their health care costs by repealing Obamacare’s restrictions on consumer-directed health plans like health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, and flexible spending accounts (FSAs). Obamacare included a provision that prohibited the use of these accounts to purchase OTC medications without a prescription, and it limited the total annual amount of contributions that could be made to an FSA. Our bill would eliminate these restrictions, thereby giving women more purchasing power and giving them more control over their own health care decisions for a number of medications.” [Foster’s Daily Democrat, 5/24/15]
- Ayotte: Legislation Would Not Mandate That Contraception Be Available OTC. In an op-ed for Foster’s Daily Democrat, Ayotte wrote, “It’s important to note that our proposal would not interfere with how the FDA determines safety and efficacy, nor does it mandate that contraception be made available OTC, instead maintaining the authority of FDA scientists and experts to make the final decision on whether a contraceptive should be made available OTC. Ensuring that the FDA is able to continue to do its job will make sure that any OTC contraceptives are held to the FDA’s same high standards of safety and efficacy.” [Foster’s Daily Democrat, 5/24/15]
2015: Ayotte Claimed That “Nothing In” Her OTC Birth Control Legislation “Changes Current Insurance Coverage Requirements For Contraceptives.” According to Huffington Post, “Republicans, most of whom oppose abortion rights, have proposed a bill that encourages the Food and Drug Administration to make the birth control pill available over the counter, but they do not support the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to cover all methods of contraception at no cost to women. […] Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), the author of the Republicans' birth control bill, told HuffPost that Murray's bill ‘does nothing to help address the current lack of available OTC contraceptives. By contrast, our bill encourages manufacturers to apply to the FDA to move their products OTC, applies to a broader range of contraceptive methods, and provides women with more purchasing power by eliminating the Obamacare FSA and HSA restrictions for OTC products,’ she said. ‘And nothing in our bill changes current insurance coverage requirements for contraceptives.’” [Huffington Post, 7/6/15]
Las Cruces Sun-News Editorial: Ayotte OTC Birth Control Bill Would Force Women To Pay For Contraception Out Of Pocket “After Not Having To Pay Anything For It.” In an editorial, the Las Cruces Sun-News wrote, “Now there are new efforts to make it easier for some oral contraceptives to be to be sold over the counter, like aspirin, rather than by prescription only. Wouldn't that guarantee the most accessibility? Theoretically, yes, but not if women are stuck buying it without benefit of insurance. Consider Senate Bill 1438, introduced by U.S. Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Cory Gardner, R-Colo. That bill would incentivize drug companies to apply to the Food and Drug Administration for permission to make their prescription contraceptives available over the counter by giving the drugs priority review and waiving the fee to apply. The bill would also repeal the Affordable Care Act's ban on using a flexible spending account for over the counter medications. All that sounds great. There's just one big problem. Only prescription drugs must be covered by insurers under the Affordable Care Act. There is no such requirement for over-the-counter medications. Many women — if not all — would find themselves paying out of pocket for contraception after not having to pay anything for it under the Affordable Care Act.” [Las Cruces Sun-News, 6/22/15]
Planned Parenthood Said That The Allowing Greater Access To Safe And Effective Contraception Act Is A “Sham And An Insult To Women.” According to the Chicago Tribune, “Suddenly, the idea doesn’t sound so great, and the former supporters aren’t mincing words. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said the bill is a ‘sham and an insult to women.’” [Chicago Tribune, 6/1/15]
Planned Parenthood Of New Hampshire: Ayotte Bill Would Prevent Women From Accessing Birth Control, Force Women To Pay More. In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Jennifer Frizzell, VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire, wrote, “As the largest reproductive health care provider and advocate in the region, Planned Parenthood Northern New England has always supported policies that expand women’s access to birth control, including making birth control available over the counter. Yet over-the-counter birth control should not come at the cost of women losing their insurance coverage, being forced to pay several hundred dollars more out of pocket each year, or preventing women from accessing the best birth control method for them. Unfortunately, this is exactly what a Republican proposal co-sponsored by Sen. Kelly Ayotte last week would do. Ayotte’s bill is an insult to New Hampshire women and women across the country. They would be wise to read the fine print and see it for the empty promise it is.” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15]
Planned Parenthood Of New Hampshire: Ayotte Bill Would Return $37 Million “To Employers And Insurance Companies At The Expense Of Hard-Working Women.” In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Jennifer Frizzell, VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire, wrote, “In Ayotte’s bill ‘over the counter’ birth control actually means ‘out of pocket’ costs for birth control. This legislation would erase the gains we’ve made to make birth control more accessible, including the no cost-sharing insurance coverage requirement provisions in the Affordable Care Act. What’s even worse is that the bill does not protect insurance coverage for birth control once it’s available over the counter, eliminating the groundbreaking no-co-pay birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act that has expanded access to birth control for more than 144,000 New Hampshire women. In 2013, the average American woman saved $2,692 in out-of-pocket costs because of this ACA benefit. This amounts to more than $37 million back in the pockets of New Hampshire women, savings that Ayotte is all too willing return to employers and insurance companies at the expense of hard-working women.” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15]
Planned Parenthood Of New Hampshire: Ayotte Bill Would Make Women Pay Twice For Their Birth Control. In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Jennifer Frizzell, VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire, wrote, “In reality, Ayotte’s bill would make women pay twice for their birth control – first they’ll pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control coverage, and then they’ll pay out of pocket for it, too.” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15]
Planned Parenthood Of New Hampshire: American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Opposes Ayotte’s Bill. In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Jennifer Frizzell, VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire, wrote, “Ayotte also misleads New Hampshire women by quoting the opinion of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to imply that these trusted medical experts support her legislation. In fact, ACOG actively opposes Ayotte’s proposal, stating that ‘this bill would actually make more women have to pay for their birth control, and for some women, the cost would be prohibitive.’ ACOG also points to the significant gains the ACA has made in increasing access to birth control for women, ‘decreasing unintended pregnancies, and allowing women to better plan their futures’ in warning that the bill would be a setback for women’s health.” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15]
Planned Parenthood Of New Hampshire: “Truly Increasing Access To Contraception Requires A Multifaceted Approach” That Ayotte’s Bill Fails To Achieve. In an op-ed for the Concord Monitor, Jennifer Frizzell, VP of public policy for Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire, wrote, “Accessing birth control isn’t a one-size-fits-all pursuit and some of the most effective forms of contraception, including IUDs and implants, cannot be available over the counter because they require the involvement of a trained health care provider. Truly increasing access to contraception requires a multifaceted approach to meet the needs of all women throughout their reproductive lives. Making birth control available over the counter can be part of the solution, but not if it comes at the expense of the no-cost contraception coverage provided by the ACA, something Sen. Ayotte wants to repeal.” [Concord Monitor, 5/28/15]
¶ In Response To Ayotte’s Legislation, Sen. Patty Murray Introduced Legislation To Provide Over-The-Counter Access To Contraception, And For It To Be Covered By Insurance Companies
Sen. Murray Introduced A Bill Mandating Insurance Coverage Of OTC Birth Control
Senator Murray Introduced Over-The-Counter Contraception Legislation, In Response To Ayotte-Gardner Bill. According to the Guardian, “Republicans are promoting over-the-counter birth control to try to fight back against their image as a party waging a ‘war on women’ – but Democrats say their rival party is more concerned with rebranding than with helping women. Even as both parties agree that birth control should be made available over the counter, the dispute over how to get there is leading to a potential showdown over women’s health. Democratic senator Patty Murray unveiled a bill this week aimed at making over-the-counter contraceptive pills more accessible and affordable to women. The legislation is a direct response to a measure introduced last month by Republican senators Kelly Ayotte and Cory Gardner, which would also provide over-the-counter birth control.” [The Guardian, 6/11/15]
While Many OTC Drugs Are Not Covered Under Health Insurance, Murray’s Bill Would Require Coverage For OTC Birth Control. According to U.S. News, “On Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced the Affordability Is Access Act, which would require health insurance companies to cover birth control pills if they are offered in pharmacies without a prescription from a doctor. ‘I believe strongly that women should be able to get the comprehensive health care they need, when they need it, without being charged extra, without asking permission and without politicians interfering,’ Murray said Tuesday in a call with reporters. […] It isn’t typical for over-the-counter drugs to be covered by health insurance, but some are. For example, Prilosec, a heartburn drug, sometimes can be paid for with insurance. Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill, also is supposed to be available over the counter and can be covered by health insurance under the health care law.” [U.S. News, 6/9/15]
¶ Ayotte Was Critical Of The Bill, Was “Not Sure What” Democrats Were “Trying To Accomplish”
Ayotte: “I’m Not Sure What They’re Trying To Accomplish” With Murray Bill, Since It Does Not Have Financial Incentives For Drug Companies To Pursue OTC Approval. According to Politico,” The Murray bill, according to Republicans, doesn’t have the financial or fast-track incentives that would encourage drugmakers to go through the complex over-the-counter approval process. ‘I’m not sure what they’re trying to accomplish in [their] bill because our bill really does generate more potential for access for women for over the counter,’ Ayotte added. ‘They don’t have that piece in their bill, so I don’t know what they’re trying to accomplish.’” [Politico, 6/17/15]
¶ Defended Extreme New Hampshire Parental Notification Law That Lacked Exceptions For Non-Life Threatening Emergencies
In 2003, New Hampshire passed a parental notification law that was considered the “strictest in the nation.” The law required teenagers to notify parents before having an abortion, but it did not contain an exception for medical emergencies.
Planned Parenthood challenged the law, and its challenge kept the law from being enforced. In 2003, before the law was to take effect, the U.S. District Court struck down the law as unconstitutional due to its lack of a health exception.
In 2005, over the objection of the Democratic governor, NH Attorney General Ayotte appealed the case. Citizens For Life Executive Director Roger Stenson praised Ayotte’s work, saying she went “the extra mile” in defense of the law.
In 2005, Ayotte took her appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ayotte personally argued the case before the Court – the only case Ayotte argued before them.
In oral argument, Ayotte was pressed on the law’s lack of a health exception and if doctors who performed emergency abortions would be subject to prosecution. Ayotte argued that in the case of a medical emergency, a doctor who performed an abortion could rely on “competing harms” statutes in defense should that doctor be prosecuted.
In 2006, The Court remanded the case back to the 1st Circuit Court with orders to consider a health exception or strike the law entirely.
Ayotte asked the District Court to review the law again, after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The District Court paused its consideration while the legislature reviewed the law. In 2007, the law was repealed. Ayotte attempted to stop the repeal effort.
In 2008, the District Court declared Planned Parenthood had won the case and ordered the NH Department of Justice to pay Planned Parenthood $300,000 in legal fees.
However, in her 2010 Senate campaign, Ayotte claimed she won the case.
¶ 2003: New Hampshire Passed A Parental Notification Law That Was Considered “The Strictest In The Nation”
New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Passed In 2003 And Required Doctors To Notify A Pregnant Teenager’s Parents Before Performing An Abortion.. According to Seacoast Online, “Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged a law requiring teenagers to notify parents before getting an abortion. They successfully proved it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain an exception in the case where a pregnant woman’s life was in danger. The law was passed in 2003 and repealed in 2007, making the lawsuit moot. In the interim, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was able to obtain an injunction that kept the law from ever being enforced.” [Seacoast Online, 9/4/08]
New Hampshire Parental Notification Law Imposed A 48-Hour Waiting Period After Parents Received Notice, With An Exception For An Immediate Threat To The Teenager’s Life. According to the New York Times, “New Hampshire imposes a 48-hour waiting period after the required notice is given to at least one parent. And, as do all states with parental-notification laws, it provides an exception for conditions that present an immediate threat to a pregnant teen-ager’s life.” [New York Times, 11/30/05]
New Hampshire Did Not Provide Abortion Exceptions For Non-Life-Threatening Medical Emergencies. According to the New York Times, “But New Hampshire is one of only five states that do not also provide an exception for medical emergencies that are not life-threatening - a danger that without an abortion a teen-ager may lose, for example, her ability to conceive in the future. The absence of that exception for nonlethal health emergencies prompted a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, to declare the New Hampshire law unconstitutional.” [New York Times, 11/30/05]
¶ December 2003: District Court Of Appeals Ruled Against The Parental Notification Law
Planned Parenthood Of Northern New England Argued That The Law Was Unconstitutional For Not Allowing An Exception From Parental Notification In The Case That The Teenager’s Health Was In Danger. According to the New York Times, “Soon after the law passed, it was challenged by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and other groups, which argued that it was unconstitutional because it did not allow an exemption from parental notification if the girl’s health was in danger. The law’s supporters had intentionally omitted such a medical exception, saying that it could be used as a loophole to allow many girls to skip telling their parents.” [New York Times, 6/8/07]
2003: U.S. District Court For The District Of New Hampshire Issued An Order Finding The Parental Notification Act Unconstitutional. According to the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, “The Act was to pass into law and take effect on December 31, 2003. However, on November 17, 2003 plaintiff and appellee, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (‘Planned Parenthood’), along with three other parties, filed suit against the state of New Hampshire in the Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Planned Parenthood sought a declaratory judgment against the constitutionality of the Act and an injunction to prevent the Act’s enforcement on the grounds that the Act is unconstitutional in that it (1) fails to provide an explicit health exception to the parental notification requirement to protect the health of the pregnant minor; (2) that the death exception is restrictively narrow; and (3) that there is insufficient protection of a minor’s confidentiality in the judicial bypass process. Planned Parenthood, hoping to prevent the Act from coming into effect, argued that the Act creates an undue burden on the minor’s right to choose an abortion, and thus runs afoul of the standard set forth in the Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, testing the constitutionality of state abortion laws. See 505 U.S. 833, 1992, Ultimately, the district court held on December 29, 2003, just two days prior to the effective date of the Act, that the Act was unconstitutional under Casey, and enjoined its enforcement.” [Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, 11/30/05]
¶ 2005: Ayotte Went “The Extra Mile” And Appealed NH’s Parental Notification Law To The Supreme Court Over The Governor’s Objections
2005: Ayotte Appealed The Case To The United States Supreme Court. According to Weekly Standard, “On November 4, 2005, Attorney General Ayotte appealed the case - over the objections of Governor John Lynch - to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood 544 U.S. 1048 (2005).” [Weekly Standard, 9/9/10]
2004: Citizens For Life Executive Director: Ayotte Went “The Extra Mile” To Defend Constitutionality Of NH’s Abortion Parental Notification Law. According to the Union Leader, “Oral arguments will be heard Friday on the state's appeal of a federal court's decision to overturn a law that would have required parents be notified before a minor could have an abortion. […] Attorney General Kelly Ayotte asked the appeals court to allow those who filed briefs in support of the pa-rental notification law to be able to participate in the oral arguments and the request was granted. […] Citizens for Life Executive Director Roger Stenson said yesterday ‘Ms. Ayotte is going the extra mile to defend this law. She is vigorously taking charge of this issue.’” [Union Leader, 8/4/04]
2005: Ayotte Herself Decided To Petition For Review By The Supreme Court. According to the Union Leader, “The law never went into effect. Abortion providers challenged the statute, and two federal courts ruled it unconstitutional. Although she could have ducked the issue and let the matter die there, Ayotte petitioned for review by the Supreme Court, saying it is her job to defend the state's laws and that New Hampshire's statute simply ‘provides the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice,’ according to the state's brief. Last May the court agreed to hear the case -- something it does in less than 2 percent of all cases presented to it.” [Union Leader, 11/23/05]
2005: Democratic NH Governor Lynch Asked The Court To Find The Law Unconstitutional. According to the Associated Press, “Gov. John Lynch said two courts already have rejected New Hampshire's parental notification law on abortions, and the U.S. Supreme Court should do the same. Lynch filed a brief with the court on Wednesday asking it to find the law unconstitutional. He said it is a risk to the health of New Hampshire women. ‘As governor, and as a father, I believe parents should be involved in these important decisions,’ he said. ‘But we must also recognize that there are cases where that is not possible - and we should not risk the health and safety of young women in those cases,’ Lynch said.” [Associated Press, 10/13/05]
¶ Ayotte Personally Argued The Parental Notification Case At The Supreme Court
2005: Ayotte Defended New Hampshire’s Abortion Parental Notification Law At The U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Boston Globe, “Hearing its first major abortion case in five years, the Supreme Court yesterday sharply questioned whether a New Hampshire law, which requires parental notification for a minor who wants an abortion, is legal even though it doesn't include an exception for a health-related emergency. New Hampshire's attorney general, Kelly A. Ayotte, defending the law, struggled to field the justices' bar-rage of questions about why the state legislature did not provide an exception for a pregnant minor whose health is in jeopardy. Ayotte answered that a combination of laws provides protection in emergency cases, but some of the justices who have supported abortion rights seemed doubtful.” [Boston Globe, 12/1/05]
¶ Ayotte Was Pressed On The Law’s Lack Of A Health Exception And If Doctors Who Performed Emergency Abortions Would Be Subject To Prosecution
Court Justices Pressed Ayotte On The Law’s Lack Of A Health Exception. According to the Boston Globe, “At issue is the 2003 parental-notification law, narrowly approved by the New Hampshire Legislature. Proponents say it allows abortion without parental notification in life-threatening cases or with a judge's authorization. But opponents argue that it doesn't include a general exception allowing an abortion to protect the mother's health, a measure other states have in similar laws. Justice David H. Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, asked Ayotte whether the law explicitly allows a minor to have an abortion in a medical emergency. Ayotte acknowledged that there isn't an ‘expressed requirement of a health exception,’ but argued that it would be wrong to imply that the law would ‘infringe on the minor's health if that rare emergency case arises.’” [Boston Globe, 12/1/05]
- AUDIO: Justice Souter Challenged Ayotte’s Argument That A Doctor Who Performed An Emergency Abortion Would Not Be Subject To Civil Liability Or Criminal Prosecution: “What Do You Mean It Would Be Constitutionally Protected?” In oral arguments of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Justice Souter asked Ayotte, “…a doctor who performs an emergency abortion under such circumstances would not be subject to either criminal prosecution or civil liability because his or her conduct would not only be constitutionally protected but would be independently justifiable, and then you cite the competing harms. What do you mean when you say it would be constitutionally protected? […]What do you mean by constitutionally protected? What are you getting at?” [Oral Argument, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood Northern New England, Oyez.org]
Boston Globe: Lack Of Emergency Exception Was Considered The Pivotal Issue In Case. According to the Boston Globe, “Both sides believe that a crucial issue will be the law's lack of an emergency exception for a woman's health. The law requires a 48-hour waiting period for parental notification, which critics say could endanger the health of a woman seeking an abortion. In addition, the court will hear arguments about whether such a law can be challenged before it has gone into effect. The law has been blocked by a court injunction since it was due to go into effect in 2003.” [Boston Globe, 11/30/05]
¶ 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Called New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Constitutionally Flawed And Sent It Back To Lower Courts For Reconsideration
January 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That While States Had The Authority To Adopt Parental Notification Laws, New Hampshire’s Law Regarding The Health Of The Mother Was “Constitutionally Flawed.” According to the Nashua Telegraph, “Jan. 8, 2006: U.S. Supreme Court rules states have the authority to adopt parental notification laws but an exception in N.H.’s law regarding the health of the mother is constitutionally flawed. The justices order the case back to the lower court for further review.” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
January 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Ordered The 1st Circuit Court Of Appeals In Boston To Consider Including A Health Exception Or Risk Striking The Bill Altogether. According to New Hampshire Public Radio, “In its ten page opinion, the court chastised lower courts for throwing out the entire statute rather than offering a health exception remedy. And the Supreme Court is ordering the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to come up with a solution. It’s directing the Boston court to consider one key question: would the legislature prefer the bill with a health exception, or no bill at all.” [New Hampshire Public Radio, 1/18/06]
¶ 2007: New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Repealed
New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Repealed In 2007. According to Seacoast Online, “Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged a law requiring teenagers to notify parents before getting an abortion. They successfully proved it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain an exception in the case where a pregnant woman’s life was in danger. The law was passed in 2003 and repealed in 2007, making the lawsuit moot. In the interim, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was able to obtain an injunction that kept the law from ever being enforced.” [Seacoast Online, 9/4/08]
¶ Ayotte Attempted To Stop Efforts To Repeal The Parental Notification Law
2007: After Voters Elected A Democratic Majority To The NH Legislature In The 2006, Ayotte Attempted To Blunt An Effort To Repeal The Parental Notification Law By Asking The Court To Throw Out Just The Unconstitutional Portion Of The Law. According to the Associated Press, “The attorney general again has asked a federal court to eliminate only the unconstitutional part of the state law requiring minors to notify a parent or judge before having an abortion. Found unconstitutional by a federal judge, an appeals court and finally the U.S. Supreme Court, the law passed by a Republican majority in 2003 is back in the hands of the federal judge who first struck it down two days before it was to take effect. Now, after sweeping Republicans out in November, Democrats have a chance to repeal the law, but it's not clear they will or even can. Meanwhile, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte asked the judge Friday to reject requests by abortion-rights activists who want the court to throw out the law and let the Legislature write a new one. She argued that the court should eliminate the unconstitutional part of the law and let the remainder stand.” [Associated Press, 1/1/07]
¶ U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled Against Ayotte’s Argument, Declared Planned Parenthood The Winner
August 12, 2008: U.S. District Court Judge DiClerico Ruled Planned Parenthood The Winner. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “On Aug. 12, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge DiClerico ruled Planned Parenthood had prevailed and ordered the two sides to negotiate terms. ‘There wasn’t any basis to defend a law that didn’t exist anymore,’ Ayotte said during a telephone interview. ‘The judge had ruled after the law was repealed. I had to follow the judge’s ruling because there was no longer a basis on which to defend it.’” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
¶ Ayotte Admitted She Could No Longer Defend The Law Because It Had Been Repealed
Ayotte Said She No Longer Had Basis To Defend The Law After Being Repealed. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “On Aug. 12, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge DiClerico ruled Planned Parenthood had prevailed and ordered the two sides to negotiate terms. ‘There wasn’t any basis to defend a law that didn’t exist anymore,’ Ayotte said during a telephone interview. ‘The judge had ruled after the law was repealed. I had to follow the judge’s ruling because there was no longer a basis on which to defend it.’” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
¶ 2009: Ayotte Claimed That She Won The Abortion Case At The U.S. Supreme Court
2009: Ayotte Campaigned Promoting Her Victory In A U.S. Supreme Court Decision To Defend The 2003 New Hampshire Abortion Notification Law. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “For months, Senate Republican candidate Kelly Ayotte’s campaign has promoted that she ‘won’ a U.S. Supreme Court decision, defending a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring that a minor girl notify a parent before getting an abortion.” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
¶ … However, The New Hampshire Department Of Justice Had To Pay Planned Parenthood’s Attorney Fees And Court Costs
2008: United States District Judge Joseph Di Clerico Ordered The New Hampshire Department Of Justice To Pay Planned Parenthood’s Attorney Fees And Court Costs. According to Seacoast Online, “In an opinion released on Aug. 12, United States District Judge Joseph Di Clerico said Planned Parenthood is entitled to attorney fees and court costs. He ordered both sides to meet and make their best efforts to resolve the amount, to avoid further court proceedings. ‘The reason we pursued this it that it’s been very costly to take this case as far as the Supreme Court,’ Mosher said. ‘It wasn’t in the budget. At this point we’re grateful to be at the end of very long case and we are pleased that the unconstitutionality of this law has been upheld. Our primary concern is the health and safety of every woman and we feel that has also been upheld.’” [Seacoast Online, 9/4/08]
- The American Civil Liberties Union And Planned Parenthood Federation Of America “Welcomed” The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision In Ayotte V. Planned Parenthood Of Northern New England, Et Al. According to Planned Parenthood, “The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) welcomed today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al, which unanimously recognized its precedent that abortion laws must protect women’s health and safety. Today’s decision tells politicians that they cannot jeopardize women’s health when they pass abortion laws,’ said Jennifer Dalven, deputy director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, and the attorney who argued Ayotte before the Court.” [Planned Parenthood, 5/12/14]
¶ Ayotte Authorized $300,000 In Taxpayer Money As Payment To Planned Parenthood
April 2009: New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte Authorized A Payment Of $300,000 In Taxpayer Money To Planned Parenthood. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “For months, Senate Republican candidate Kelly Ayotte’s campaign has promoted that she ‘won’ a U.S. Supreme Court decision, defending a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring that a minor girl notify a parent before getting an abortion. Yet, as attorney general in April 2009, Ayotte approved spending $300,000 in taxpayer money to settle the case and pay the legal costs of the opposing party, after a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge decided Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was the winner. The state paid Planned Parenthood with two payments of $150,000 each in April and August 2009. These payments quietly passed through the state’s budget office and did not require the approval of the Legislature or Gov. John Lynch.” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
- Planned Parenthood Initially Requested $532,000 In Fees Before Negotiating A Lower Amount With The State. According to the Nashua Telegraph, “In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of states to adopt parental notification laws, but decided that New Hampshire’s exception for the health of the mother was constitutionally flawed. The justices sent the case back down to the lower court. In the settlement, Deputy Attorney General Fitch noted Planned Parenthood asked for $532,000 and the state negotiated to the lower amount. The payments were spread over two years because at the time the recession had begun to take a toll on state revenues.” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
¶ Editorial Reaction
Union Leader Editorial: Ayotte “Did Nothing And Kept Quiet” About Planned Parenthood Settlement, And Attempted To Use “Her Great Pro-Life Court Victory Without Mentioning Her Subsequent Surrender” In Her Campaign. In an editorial, the New Hampshire Union Leader wrote, “So it turns out that U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte's pro-life ‘win’ before the U.S. Supreme Court actually cost the taxpayers of New Hampshire a whopping $300,000, payable to the ‘losing’ pro-abortion Planned Parenthood. Ayotte contends she had no choice in the matter because an appeals court to which the case was returned ordered a settlement after Gov. John Lynch and the Democratic Legislature had repealed the law in dispute. […] But Ayotte did have choices. She had grounds to appeal the lower court's order to pay Planned Parenthood. Her side was the ‘prevailing party’ in the case; and there is a Supreme Court ruling that she could have cited to argue against paying anything to the loser. At the very least, she could have scored a moral victory for the pro-life movement by publicly denouncing the settlement she claims she was forced to make. Instead, Kelly Ayotte did nothing and kept quiet. And now in her campaign she boasts about her great pro-life court victory without mentioning her subsequent surrender.” [New Hampshire Union Leader, 9/9/10]
¶ Ayotte Repeatedly Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood
2015: Ayotte Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In May 2015, Ayotte voted for barring all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. According to CNN, “The fight over funding for Planned Parenthood shifts to a must-pass government funding measure this fall after a procedural vote in the Senate on legislation that would have barred all federal funds for the group failed on Monday.” The vote was on cloture the Motion to Proceed; the motion was rejected by a vote of 53 to 46. [Senate Vote 262, 8/3/15; CNN, 8/4/15]
April 2011: Ayotte Voted For A Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood. In April 2011, Ayotte voted for prohibiting any funds appropriated in the recently-passed bill funding the government through the end of fiscal year 2011 from being made available to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates. The vote was on a continuing resolution that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “[d]irect[ed] the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1473 (Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011) to prohibit any funds under such Act from being made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.” That change would have been made prior to sending H.R. 1473 – which had already passed both the House and Senate – to the president. The Senate rejected the concurrent resolution by vote of 42 to 58. [Senate Vote 60, 4/14/11; CRS Summary, H Con Res 36, 4/14/11]
March 2011: Ayotte Voted For Eliminating FY2011 Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood. In March 2011, Ayotte voted for prohibiting any funds in the remainder of FY2011 from being used to fund Planned Parenthood. The provision was part of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until the end of FY 2011 that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The bill was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56. The bill number was later used as the vehicle for another piece of legislation. [Senate Vote 36, 3/9/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1; Congressional Quarterly, 3/1/11]
¶ Media Reaction
National Journal: “The Strongest Political Consequences” For Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood “Might Come In New Hampshire.” According to National Journal, “The debate over federal funding for Planned Parenthood is boiling over in Washington. But the strongest political consequences in 2016 might come in New Hampshire. Last week New Hampshire became the third state, along with Alabama and Louisiana, to cut back state funding for Planned Parenthood in response to controversial videos documenting the group's participation in fetal-tissue-donation programs. While the dozens of presidential candidates visiting the state have all eagerly chimed in on the issue, New Hampshire will also host competitive races for Senate and governor next year.” [National Journal, 8/13/15]
- National Journal: Despite Ayotte’s Vote To Defund Planned Parenthood, NH Republican Primary Voters “Are More Pro-Choice Than Pro-Life.” According to National Journal, “In an important state where women's health has been a central political issue for years, and where even Republican primary voters are more pro-choice than pro-life, the trend is set to continue in 2016. National Democrats pounced on GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte, one of their top targets in the Senate, for her recent vote to defund Planned Parenthood.” [National Journal, 8/13/15]
¶ Ayotte’s Husband’s only NH State Level Political Contribution Was To State Senator Who Attempted To Cut Funding For Planned Parenthood
In 2010, Ayotte’s Spouse, Joseph Daley Contributed To The Republican State Senator From Their Town Of Nashua. We have identified a single state campaign contribution in 2010 to the Republican State Senator from their town of Nashua, totaling $250, made by Joseph Daley.
| Beneficiary of Contributions | Office Sought | Date of Contributions | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gary Lambert | State Senate- District 13 | 7/23/2010 |
$250.00 |
| Total: |
$250.00 |
[Influence Explorer, “Joseph Daley,” data.influenceexplorer.com; Ballotpedia, “Gary Lambert,” ballotpedia.org]
¶ 2012: Lambert Attempted To Cut Funding To Planned Parenthood And Women’s Health Clinics
Lambert Sponsored An Amendment To An Abortion Bill In The NH State Senate To Cut Off Funding To Planned Parenthood And Rural Women’s Health Clinics. According to the Associated Press, “The New Hampshire Senate is taking up a half-dozen abortion bills Wednesday, including one that could jeopardize the state's federal funding for its Medicaid program. The bill would cut off taxpayer funding to hospitals, clinics, and others who perform elective abortions, although an amendment proposes exempting hospitals. That would end funding to six Planned Parenthood of Northern New England centers and several other rural clinics. The amendment's sponsor - state Senator Gary Lambert, Republican of Nashua - hopes to reduce the financial impact on the Medicaid program, but he says he does not know what risk remains. Health and Human Services Commissioner Nicholas Toumpas cautioned the Senate in letters that the bill could imperil the state's $1.4 billion annual state-federal Medicaid program. About half the funding is federal. ‘That wasn't feasible. That would have been a financial nightmare for the state,’ Lambert said Monday.” [Associated Press, 4/23/12]