2022: Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Access Contraceptives And The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Contraceptives To Their Patients. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would "protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 228-195, thus the bill was sent to Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 385, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]
The Bill Was A Resulted From The U.S. Supreme Court's Overturn Of Roe V. Wade And Concerns That The Court May Revisit Same-Sex Marriage And The Right To Contraception. According to The New York Times, "House Democratic leaders opted to move forward with the bill after the Supreme Court's decision overturning abortion rights raised worries about the prospect that the justices might revisit cases that affirmed same-sex marriage rights and the right to contraception. The debate in Congress thrust the issue into the midterm election campaign, where Democrats are eager to draw a distinction between their party's support for L.G.B.T.Q. rights and opposition by many Republicans." [New York Times, 7/19/22]
The Bill Would Establish The Federal Right For Contraception Access And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Contraceptives. According to Reuters, "The bill would create a federal right for people to access contraceptives and for doctors and pharmacists to provide them. Contraceptives are used by 88% of U.S. women of childbearing age who are not trying to get pregnant, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group." [Reuters, 7/21/22]
Although None Have Passed, Several State Legislatures Have Introduced Legislation To Restrict Contraceptive Access And 12 States Currently Permit Health Care Providers To Refuse To Prescribe Contraception. According to Reuters, "Some state legislatures have introduced bills to restrict access to contraceptives, though they have not passed. In addition, 12 states allow health providers to refuse contraception, according to the Guttmacher Institute." [Reuters, 7/21/22]
The Bill Would Protect Oral And Emergency Contraceptives, Intrauterine Devices And Condoms. According to The Hill, "Contraceptives protected under the legislation include oral and emergency medications, intrauterine devices and condoms." [The Hill, 7/21/22]
The Bill Would Allow The U.S. Attorney General, Health Care Providers And Injured Individuals To Sue States That Violate The Right To Contraception Access. According to The Hill, "Additionally, the bill authorizes the attorney general, health care providers and other individuals to take civil action against any states that violate the provisions of the bill." [The Hill, 7/21/22]
Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Was Too Broad And Could Violate Religious Liberty Protections. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But some House Republicans who opposed the contraception bill, sponsored by Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., said they worried the legislation was too broad and could limit protections under a religious liberty law known as the Religious Restoration Freedom Act of 1993. They also worried that the bill could violate other federal and state moral protection laws." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Would Increase Funding For Abortion Providers And That The Right To Contraception Would Be Interpreted To Protect Medication Abortion Drugs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Other Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill would increase funds for abortion providers and be interpreted to cover the right to medication abortion drugs." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
Congressman Frank Pallone (D) Clarified That The Bill Defined Contraceptives As FDA-Regulated Products And Emphasized That The Bill Would Not Prevent The FDA From Removing Unsafe Products. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., disagreed with that interpretation. 'This bill defines contraceptives as those legally marked under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,' said Pallone, referring to the 1938 law that granted FDA authority. 'Nothing prevents FDA to [sic] remove unsafe products from the market.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "Hinson, R-Iowa, motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 190-234. [House Vote 384, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Included Biological Products And FDA-Regulated Products In The Definition Of "Contraceptives," Specified That "Health Care Providers" Were Authorized Providers, And Clarified That The Contraception Access Bill Did Not Sanction Forced Sterilization. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert effectively voted against the management's amendment, which would "specify that the bill's definition of 'contraceptive' includes biological products and is limited to products legally marketed under existing Food and Drug Administration regulations; clarify the bill's definition of 'health care provider' to state that providers must be authorized by the state to provide health care services; specify that the bill may not be construed to sanction sterilization procedures without a patient's informed consent; and make technical changes." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200, thus the manager's amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]
2022: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 219-199. [House Vote 365, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Add A Provision Allowing Employers To Opt-Out For A Year From The ACA's Requirement That Employer-Provided Health Insurance Cover Women's Preventative Care, Including Contraception, To Legislation That Would Have Prevented A Government Shutdown. In September 2013, Schweikert voted to amend a proposed continuing appropriations resolution that would have funded the federal government through November 15, 2013, by adding a provision that, according to CNN, was a "so-called 'conscience clause,'" which "would allow employers and insurers to opt out of preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current Obamacare rules. [...] With this move, House Republican leaders would give any employer or group health plan the ability to opt out of contraception coverage for the next year." The other provisions, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "delay[ed] for one year implementation of any provision of the 2010 health care overhaul that would take effect between Oct. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2014, including the individual mandate and the imposition or increase of specified taxes and fees, [...] bar[red] appropriations and transfers from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Fund, [...] [and] set the expiration date for the continuing appropriations to Dec. 15, 2013." The vote was on a motion to concur, with a further amendment, to the Senate's amendment to the continuing resolution that the House had passed 10 days earlier. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 231 to 192. The Senate later rejected the House's proposed amendment. [House Vote 498, 9/29/13; Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 59; Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13; CNN, 9/28/13; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 59]
Senate Had Sent The House A "Clean" Continuing Resolution, Which Funded The Government Through November 15, 2013, And Which Did Not Include Provisions Defunding The ACA. According to Congressional Quarterly, "At the insistence of conservative Republicans and outside conservative groups, the CR as originally passed by the House would have permanently defunded the 2010 health care law. Senate Democrats over the course of the past week, working through the Senate's often lengthy parliamentary procedures, passed the bill after amending it to drop the Obamacare defunding provisions, as well as House language giving Treasury certain limited borrowing authority (Treasury now estimates that it will be unable to fully finance government operations unless the statutory debt limit is raised by Oct. 17). The Senate also made several other changes to the measure, including by shortening the CR's duration from Dec. 15 to Nov. 15." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/13]
House Considered Two Amendments To Senate's CR: One Would Delay Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act By One Year And Extend The Funding From The CR By One Month; The Other Would Repeal The ACA's Tax On Medical Devices. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House early Sunday backed a stopgap spending measure that would delay implementation of the health care law and repeal a tax on medical devices, increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown Tuesday. The House sent back the continuing resolution (H J Res 59) to the Senate, adopting amendments by: Erik Paulsen, R-Minn. [...] that would repeal a tax on medical devices that funds the health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) [. . .] Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., [...] that would delay for one year any provision of the 2010 health care overhaul that is otherwise scheduled to take effect between Oct. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2014. [...] The House counterproposal would run until Dec. 15, reversing a Senate change that would shorten it to Nov. 15." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13]
Amendment With ACA Delay Provisions Permitted Companies And Insurance Providers To Opt Out, Based On Religious Or Moral Objections, Of ACA Mandate To Cover Women's Preventative Care Services, Including Birth Control Coverage. According to the text of the House amendment, as printed in the Congressional Record, "Section 2713(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4)) shall not be effective for any period before January 1, 2015, with respect to the requirement for specific coverage for any sponsor of a group health plan (or, in the case of student health plans, the institution of higher education offering such plans), health insurance issuer, or individual opposing such requirement for coverage based on religious or moral objections." 42 U.S.C 300gg-13(a) states that "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for [...](4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph." According to the HRSA's Women's Preventative Services Guidelines, they include the following preventative service types: "Well-woman visits; [...] [s]creening for gestational diabetes; [...] [h]uman papillomavirus testing; [...] [c]ounseling for sexually transmitted infections; [...] [c]ounseling and screening for human immune-deficiency virus; [...] [c]ontraceptive methods and counseling, [including] [a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity; [...] [b]reastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; [...] [and] [s]creening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence" (footnotes omitted). [Congressional Record, 9/28/13; 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, Viewed 6/30/14; HRSA's Women's Preventative Services Guidelines, Viewed 6/30/14]
Supporters Said Year-Long ACA Delay Was A Fair Compromise And Democrats Should Accept It To Avoid Shutting Down Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans said Democrats should accept the yearlong delay of the health care overhaul as a compromise over a House-passed version of the measure last week that would defund the law. 'If this government shuts down, it is because you have rejected the compromise that Republicans have reached out to offer,' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13]
Opponents Said Amending Senate's Continuing Resolution Moved Nation Closer To Government Shutdown Because The Amended CR Had No Chance Of Becoming Law. According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Democrats said the GOP moved the nation closer to a government shutdown for the first time in nearly 17 years. 'Instead of working with Democrats to prevent a shutdown, the majority has gotten even more extreme by writing a bill that has no chance of becoming law,' said Rep. Nita M. Lowey of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. 'Anyone who votes to amend the Senate bill is voting for a shutdown.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Copayments For Contraceptives Covered By Health Insurance Plans Without A Cost-Sharing Requirement For Veterans. In June 2021, Schweikert voted against the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the Veterans Affairs Department from requiring copayments from a veteran for any contraceptive items that are required to be covered by health insurance plans without a cost-sharing requirement." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 245-181, after initially failing to meet 2/3 of the vote on June 15th, 2021. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 184, 6/24/21; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 239]