House Republicans are urging for abortion restrictions in government spending and must-pass policy bills, providing lawmakers with a way to exhibit their anti-abortion views without having to vote on the controversial issue separately.
These actions are setting up a confrontation with the Senate. Democrats have stated that they will block any “poison pill” provisions, and even Republicans admit that the bills will require bipartisan support.
The anti-abortion provisions cover a broad range of areas. Some are incorporated into the text of the underlying legislation, while others are amendments.
They address issues such as the military’s reimbursement for abortion-related travel, whether Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals should offer abortions, and changes to the dispensing of the abortion drug mifepristone.
“It’s just to create division, culture wars, etc. And they think that that’s going to divert the public’s attention from the significant harm they’re causing through program cuts to services that people rely on,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, in an interview with The Hill on Tuesday.
The battle over abortion access for military personnel has been ongoing in the Senate for months, with Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) single-handedly stalling military promotions in protest against the Pentagon’s policy of reimbursing service members for out-of-state abortion travel.
This issue has now moved to the House, where it poses a threat to a vote on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and conservatives are pushing for an amendment to reverse the policy.
Whether or not the amendment will become part of the larger bill remains unclear, but anti-abortion provisions have already been included in advanced appropriations bills in the House.
Last month, the House Appropriations Committee advanced the Food and Drug Administration spending bill, which contained a provision that rolls back a policy allowing pharmacists to dispense mifepristone, one of the drugs used in medication abortion, by mail.
The full committee also advanced the annual Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill, which prohibited VA medical centers from performing abortions or providing gender-affirming care.
Last year, the VA announced that medical facilities would grant abortion access to veterans and eligible dependents “in cases that endanger the life or health of an individual,” even in states with abortion bans without exceptions.
In a statement marking the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade, the GOP Appropriations Committee majority celebrated the inclusion of anti-abortion provisions in the bills.
As polls show that majorities of Americans favor protecting the right to abortion, an increasing number of House Republicans are refraining from pursuing national abortion restrictions. The House GOP majority has even encountered obstacles in passing bills that focus on narrower scopes, such as permanently codifying and expanding the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits certain federal funds from being used for abortion procedures.
This bill has yet to reach the floor due to opposition from moderate House Republicans.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) stated that while she has not read the proposed anti-abortion NDAA amendments, she cautioned Republicans against focusing on abortion bans, especially if they are unrelated to the underlying legislation.
“We shouldn’t be doing anything that’s not relevant. This is an issue that I have been very vocal about,” Mace said. “We have already voted on three, four, or five different abortion bills or amendments this year, but what have we done to protect women?”
However, incorporating efforts to restrict abortions into funding bills could allow Republicans to send a message to voters without subjecting vulnerable swing-district members to a direct vote.
“They are aware that their policy position is unpopular. People believe in abortion rights and reproductive rights, so they are attempting to push their agenda through a more discreet process,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Nevertheless, Republicans advocating for controversial anti-abortion measures is nothing new.
In 2018, House Republicans sought a rider on the annual health spending bill that would have cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood and eliminated a federal family planning program.
However, it did not advance in the Senate, and lawmakers on both sides acknowledge that a similar outcome will likely occur this year as well.
“I don’t know what’s happening in the House, but getting 60 votes in the Senate to either restrict or enhance abortion availability? I don’t know how something like that would pass the Senate,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), the leading Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, also does not foresee any significant developments on abortion through the appropriations process.
“This is largely because our chair and vice chair, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), met early on this year,” she explained. “The agreement was that we’re going to try to proceed with regular order, and that there would be no new poison pill amendments in our final bills – and that’s an agreement between the parties.”
“Remember, there are poison pills on both sides. So, although I don’t think we’ll eliminate things we have previously recognized as poison pills, we will prevent any new ones from happening,” she concluded.