2019: Schweikert Voted For Blocking Funding For Family Planning And Reproductive Health Through The USAID. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2020 minibus that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill a provision allocating $750 million for family planning and reproductive health programs, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity, from funding provided by the bill for U.S. Agency for International Development global health programs." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188-225. [House Vote 324, 6/18/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 340; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Would Make It More Difficult For Federally Funded Facilities To Provide Abortion Services. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike from the bill a provision requiring the Health and Human Services Department to administer certain family planning program grants under statutory frameworks in effect as of January 18, 2017. The provision that would be struck down would effectively block implementation of a March 2019 HHS rule related to grants for facilities providing abortions." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 191-231. [House Vote 267, 6/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 275; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
The Amendment Would Have Upheld A Trump Administration Rule That Aimed To Hinder Planned Parenthood From Providing Abortion Services. According to The Atlantic, "In late February, the Trump administration dropped a new rule that has alarmed doctors' groups and brought conservatives closer to achieving their long quest to defund Planned Parenthood. Clinics that receive funds from the federal family-planning grant program Title X will no longer be able to perform abortions in the same space where they see other patients. Abortion and other health-care services will be required to be physically and financially separate entities. Title X participants will also no longer be able to refer patients to abortion providers, though they can mention abortion to their patients. About 20 percent of Title X providers would potentially have to renovate their clinics to meet the new guidelines, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. It will likely cost each of these providers $20,000 to $40,000 to come into compliance with the physical-separation element of the new rule." [The Atlantic, 3/5/19]
The Rule Would Have Made It More Difficult For Poor Women To Access Medical Services Unrelated To Abortions. According to the Atlantic, "Such a measure might conjure images of scores of Planned Parenthood clinics suddenly closing their doors. But the impacts of the rule are likely to be more subtle, and to mostly affect poor women's access to medical services unrelated to abortions." [The Atlantic, 3/5/19]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Allowing The NIH To Use Funds On Abortion Related Experiments. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] language that applies any policy riders included in annual Labor-HHS-Education and Agriculture appropriations bills to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funds provided by the bill." The underlying legislation was the 21st Century Cures Act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 176 to 245. [House Vote 432, 7/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 658; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Bar Someone From Using Their Health Savings Account Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In The Case Of Rape, Incest Or A Threat To The Mother's Life. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, their budget would "[i]mplement real patient-centered health care reform that would lower costs and improve access with the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act." According to the RSC's section-by-section description of the AHCRA, section 251 of the bill "[p]rohibits HSA funds from being used to pay for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Republican Study Committee, 9/17/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother's Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "permanently prohibit[ed] the use of federal funds, facilities or staff to provide abortion coverage and services, except in cases of rape or incest and for saving the life of the mother." The House passed by a vote of 227 to 188; the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 30, 1/28/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
Rules Committee Effectively Stripped Provisions Prohibiting Claiming A Tax Deduction Or Using A Health Savings Account To Pay For Abortion Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Rules Committee expects to make in order a version of the bill that has been modified from the measure as reported by the Judiciary Committee. (Among the changes, it drops committee-reported tax provisions that would prevent an individual from deducting any abortion expenses as a tax-eligible medical expense or using pre-tax flex health or health savings accounts for abortion expenses.)" [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Bill Applied Prohibition To District Of Columbia Spending From Local Funds. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill prohibits the District of Columbia from using either federal funds or its own local funds to directly provide abortions, pay for abortion services or purchase any insurance plan that covers abortions. Specifically, it prevents D.C. from using federal funds for those purposes and includes the District of Columbia in the definition of the term 'federal government' --- thereby prohibiting D.C. from using its own local funds for those purposes." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Bill Prohibited Individuals And Small Businesses From Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Purchase A Health Insurance Plan That Covers Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill prohibits individuals and small businesses from receiving federal subsidies and tax credits under the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148; PL 111-152) to purchase qualified health care plans that cover abortions. [...] Specifically, the measure prohibits individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. [...] It also prohibits small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Bill Exempted Rape, Incest, "Physical" Threats To A Woman's Life, And Treatment Of Complications Arising From An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "These abortion funding prohibitions would not apply for pregnancies that occur as the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would result in death unless an abortion is performed. They also would not apply with regard to funding for the treatment of complications or other disorders that are caused or exacerbated by an abortion. [...] For both individuals and small employers, the prohibition [on ACA subsidy usage] would not apply to health policies that provide abortion coverage only for cases of rape or incest, for physical disorders that a physician certifies would place a woman in danger unless the abortion is performed, or for treatment of any disorder that has been caused or exacerbated by an abortion." The bill, as effectively modified by the House Rules Committee, does not use the term "forcible rape." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14; Rules Committee Print 113-33, 1/22/14]
Bill Stated That Individuals, Companies And State And Local Governments May Still Purchase Health Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion Or Separate Abortion Coverage If They Don't Use Any Federal Funds. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure states that nothing in it should be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, state or locality from purchasing separate health insurance coverage that includes abortion --- or restricting the ability of any non-federal health insurance coverage provider from offering abortion coverage --- as long as the coverage is entirely paid for with non-federal funds. Such extra coverage, however, could not be purchased using funds that a state also counts as matching funds for a federally funded program. [...] The bill states that the restriction [on use of ACA subsidies] should not be construed as prohibiting any individual from purchasing separate coverage for abortions, or a health plan that includes abortions, as long as no credit is allowed with respect to the premiums for such coverage. For small employers, it is not to be construed as prohibiting any employer from purchasing separate coverage for abortions or restricting any non-federal health insurance issuer from offering such a plan, as long as it is not paid for with any employer contribution eligible for the credit." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Supporters Argued That The Affordable Care Act Made A Gaping Hole In Long-Standing Federal Policy Prohibiting Federal Funding For Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that the health care overhaul constitutes an expansion of abortion coverage and that the bill is needed to address what has otherwise become a major breach in the Hyde amendment, which has been U.S. policy since 1976. Despite the executive order that was issued in conjunction with enactment of the health care law, they contend, tens of millions of Americans will be eligible for federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand, in direct contradiction to the Hyde amendment. Proponents contend that public opinion is on their side, pointing to polls that say the government has no business funding abortion, even indirectly. They note that Congress has prevented federal funding of abortion for more than 35 years through a patchwork of provisions in annual appropriations measures, and that the bill would enable members to pass a single piece of legislation that prohibits any federal funding of abortion, no matter where in the federal system it might otherwise occur. They argue that a comprehensive taxpayer funding ban would reduce abortions and extend to the unborn the inalienable right to life that everybody should enjoy." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Opponents Argued Bill Would Undermine Women's Rights More Broadly, By Discouraging Private Health Insurance Coverage Plans From Including Abortion Coverage, Thus Forcing Women To Ask For -- And Pay More For -- Separate Abortion Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it constitutes yet another attack on women's rights that could undermine access to abortion. The bill, they say, goes far beyond prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions and could drive insurance companies away from providing abortion coverage as a basic element of health insurance policies. Everyone agrees that we want to reduce abortions, but the bill goes about it the wrong way, they say, discouraging insurers from including abortion coverage in comprehensive health care policies and erecting new hurdles for women by making them seek out and pay more to buy a separate policy that covers abortion." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
Opponents Pointed To Bill's Lack Of A Health Exception For Non-Life Threatening Conditions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They also argue that the bill contains no exceptions to protect a woman's health in non-life-threatening situations, providing no support in the case of pregnancies that might threaten future fertility or worsen a chronic health condition such as heart disease, as well as providing no protections in the case of a terminal fetal anomaly. Abortion, they say, is a constitutionally protected right and a basic health care service, and Americans want to see Congress work to create jobs and fix our crumbling national infrastructure, not launch more anti-woman crusades." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/14]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother's Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly Schweikert voted against the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would prohibit any party from violating a woman's medical privacy regarding her choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance coverage." The House rejected the motion by a vote of 192 to 221. [House Vote 29, 1/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother's Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 465) that would provide for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 7) that would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services and debate on the conference report for the bill (HR 2642) that would authorize agriculture programs through fiscal 2018." The House adopted the rule by a vote of 224 to 192. [House Vote 27, 1/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 465; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit Any Use Of Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother's Life; Ban Would Forbid Using Affordable Care Act Subsidies To Pay For Health Insurance That Covered Abortion. In January 2014, according to Congressional Quarterly Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 465) that would provide for House floor consideration of a bill (HR 7) that would permanently prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services and debate on the conference report on the bill (HR 2642) that would authorize agriculture programs through fiscal 2018." The House passed by a vote of 222 to 194. [House Vote 26, 1/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 465; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Permanently Ban Federal Funding For Abortion Services. In January 2017, Schweikert voted for codifying the Hyde Amendment. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would permanently prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or health insurance plans that include abortion coverage. It also would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its own local funds to provide or pay for abortions. Individuals and small businesses also could not receive tax credits under the 2010 health care law related to purchases of health insurance plans that include abortion coverage. The bill would require the Office of Personnel Management to ensure that, starting in 2018, no multistate qualified health plan offered in a state insurance exchange provides coverage that includes abortion. The provisions would not apply to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or to situations where the woman would die unless an abortion is performed." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 238 to 183. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 65, 1/24/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
Legislation Would Essentially Codify The Hyde Amendment. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Even if the bill is signed into law, the current status quo won't substantially change. Similar language restricting abortion funding, known as the Hyde Amendment, has been included in annual spending bills since 1976. It says that no appropriated funds can be used for abortions or for health plans that include abortion coverage except for pregnancies caused by rape or incest or if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17]
Legislation Would Prevent Refundable Tax Credits To Be Used For Health Insurers That Provide Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "However, the bill would go further than the Hyde Amendment by trying to impose burdens on insurance companies or individuals who use private money to pay for abortions. For instance, it would disallow the use of refundable tax credits and cost sharing-reductions for health insurers and small employers that provide abortion coverage." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/17]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Permanently Banning Federal Funds To Pay For Abortion Or Abortion Coverage, Forcing Insurance Companies To Display Prominently When They Cover Abortion And Provide Exception For Rape, Incest, Or To Save Mother's Life. In January 2015, Schweikert voted for permanently banning federal funds for abortion, abortion coverage and provide exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's health in life threatening situations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill permanently prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion or abortion coverage, prohibits federal medical facilities and health professionals from providing abortion services, and prohibits individuals and small businesses from receiving federal subsidies and tax credits under the 2010 health care overhaul to purchase health care plans that cover abortions. The measure provides an exception for abortions in cases of rape or incest and for saving the life of the mother. It also requires all qualified health plans that provide abortion coverage to prominently disclose that fact to enrollees at the time of enrollment, as well as to prominently display such information in any marketing or advertising materials, plan comparison tools or summaries of benefits and coverage." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 242 to 179. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 45, 1/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/1/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7]
Bill Could Drive Insurers Away From Covering Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it constitutes yet another attack on women's rights that could undermine access to abortion. The bill, they say, goes far beyond prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions and could drive insurance companies away from providing abortion coverage as a basic element of health insurance policies. Everyone agrees that we want to reduce abortions, but the bill goes about it the wrong way, they say, discouraging insurers from including abortion coverage in comprehensive health care policies and erecting new hurdles for women. They contend that rather than simply codifying the Hyde amendment, the bill will effectively act to prohibit millions of American families from using their own money to buy health plans that include abortion coverage." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/15]
Bill Does Not Have An Exception For Women's Health In Non-Life Threatening Situations. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents also argue that the bill contains no exceptions to protect a woman's health in non-life-threatening situations, providing no support in the case of pregnancies that might threaten future fertility or worsen a chronic health condition such as heart disease, as well as providing no protections in the case of a terminal fetal anomaly." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/15]
Supporters Of The Bill Claim That The Affordable Care Act Expanded Abortion Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that the health care overhaul constitutes an expansion of abortion coverage and that the bill is needed to address what has otherwise become a major breach in the Hyde amendment, which has been U.S. policy since 1976. Despite the executive order that was issued in conjunction with enactment of the health care law, they contend, hundreds of policies offer abortion coverage, thereby making tens of millions of Americans eligible for federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand, in direct contradiction to the Hyde amendment. Making matters worse, they say, is the fact that consumers now can't readily tell whether a policy offers abortion coverage, a problem that the bill's disclosure requirements will correct." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/15]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Allowing Federal Employees' Health Plans To Cover Any Aspect Of Abortion. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] a section of the bill that would [have] prohibit[ed] funds from being used to pay for an abortion or administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the federal employees health benefits program which provides benefits or coverage for abortions." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 177 to 245. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 364, 7/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/6/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1233; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5485]