2022: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Codifying The Right To Receive
Abortion Services And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide
Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting Abortion Restrictions. In
July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
against the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which would
"statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to
provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it
would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The
bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be
restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion
services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability,
or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a
pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements
that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically
unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide
medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or
procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services;
limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on
good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or
provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a
patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that
would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures.
It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to
those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services
and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or
facilities." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a
vote 219-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not
take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 360,
7/15/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/15/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8296]
The Bill Specified The Factors That Courts Could Consider When
Determining Whether A Regulation Were To Limit Or Impede Access To
Abortion And Required The Party Defending The Regulation To Prove
That It Advances The Safety Of Abortion Or The Patient's Health.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would specify factors that
courts may consider to determine whether a requirement or limitation
impedes access to abortion services, including whether it interferes
with providers' ability to provide services; poses a risk to
patients' health; is likely to delay or deter patients in accessing
services or necessitate in-person visits that would not otherwise be
required; is likely to result in a decreased availability of
services in a state or region; is likely to result in increased
costs of providing or obtaining services; or imposes penalties that
are not imposed on other health care providers for comparable
conduct. It would require a party defending a requirement or
limitation to establish that it significantly advances the safety of
abortion services or patient health and that such goals cannot be
advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure." [Congressional
Quarterly, 7/15/22]
The Bill Authorized The Justice Department, Medical Providers, And
Individuals And Entities To Sue In Federal Court Against Any
Governmental Entity That Were To Implement Abortion Restrictions.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would authorize the
Justice Department, health care providers and private individuals
and entities to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for
injunctive relief against any state or government official charged
with implementing or enforcing a requirement or limitation
challenged as a violation of rights established by the bill. It
would authorize district courts to award appropriate equitable
relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive
relief, and to award costs of litigation to a prevailing plaintiff.
It would require courts to 'liberally construe' provisions of the
bill to effectuate its purposes." [Congressional Quarterly,
7/15/22]
H.R. 8296 Was An Identical Bill To The Abortion Protections Bill
Passed In September 2021 By The House, H.R. 3755, But Adds Findings
Over The Dobbs Case That Overturned Roe V. Wade. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The bill is substantively identical to HR
3755, which the House passed in September 2021, but adds findings
related to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization." [Congressional Quarterly,
7/15/22]
The Bill Was Another Attempt To Codify Roe V. Wade After The
Senate Failed To Advance The First Version Of The Bill In May
2022. According to The Washington Post, "One bill, the Women's
Health Protection Act, would enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade
into law. The House already passed the bill last year, but it did
not advance in a Senate vote in May. The House passed the bill,
219-210, prompting applause from Democrats in the chamber. All
Republicans and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) voted against the
measure." [The Washington Post,
7/15/22]
Republicans Falsely Mislabeled The Bill As The "Abortions On
Demand Until Birth Act." According to The Washington Post, "As
further proof of their opposition to the measure, Republicans
falsely renamed the legislation in their whip notice as the
'Abortions on Demand until Birth Act' --- which is a
misrepresentation of the bill --- and repeated that claim on the
House floor." [The Washington Post,
7/15/22]
The Bill Would Establish The Right For Medical Providers To
Provide Abortion Services And Their Patients The Right To Receive
Them And Invalidate State Restrictions That Were Implemented After
The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade. According to The New York Times, "A
second measure, a version of which passed the House last year, would
explicitly give health care providers the right to provide abortion
services and their patients the right to obtain them, invalidating a
variety of state restrictions that were enacted in the aftermath of
the Supreme Court's decision reversing Roe v. Wade and ending the
constitutional right to abortion. That second measure, the Women's
Health Protection Act, passed 219 to 210, also mainly along party
lines, with one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas,
voting with Republicans." [New York Times,
7/15/22]
The Bill Would Allow Abortions After Viability Only In Health- Or
Life-Threatening Circumstances. According to The New York Times,
"In reality, the Democratic bill allows abortions after viability
only in circumstances when a doctor determines that the continuation
of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the patient's life or health."
[New York Times,
7/15/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access
Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "Fischbach, R-Minn., 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 209-218.
[House Vote 359,
7/15/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/15/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8296]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access
Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that
would provide for House consideration of [...] the Women's Health
Protection Act (HR 8296)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The
House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304,
7/13/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8296;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1224]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access
Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted against the "motion to order the previous question
(thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res
1224) that would provide for House consideration of [...] the Women's
Health Protection Act (HR 8296)." The vote was on a motion to order the
previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208.
[House Vote 303,
7/13/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8296;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1224]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of
2021, Which Would Protect The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit
Restrictions On Abortion. In September 2021, Fitzpatrick voted against
the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 which would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "statutorily establish that health care
providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive
abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to
abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the
bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations
related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior
to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines
that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life
or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an
abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments;
requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or
perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the
provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to
prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services
via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a
risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and
personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically
comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or
limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that
impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single
out abortion services, providers or facilities." The vote was on
passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-211. The Senate
failed to invoke cloture on the bill in February 2022. [House Vote 295,
9/24/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/24/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3755]
The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions And Establish That
Health Care Providers Have A Right To Provide Abortions And
Individuals Have The Right To Receive An Abortion. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would statutorily
establish that health care providers have a right to provide and
patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would
prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services."
[Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions, Including Measures
Restricting Abortions Before Fetal Viability And When The Patient's
Life Is At Risk, Measures Requiring Justification For Seeking An
Abortion, And Measures Requiring Medical Personnel To Provide
Inaccurate Information Or Unnecessary Medical Tests To Discourage
Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would
specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by
certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services,
including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or
after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of
a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health;
requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion
or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements
that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform
specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the
provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to
prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide
services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay
would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for
facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities
providing medically comparable procedures." [Congressional
Quarterly, 9/24/21]
The Bill Would Prohibit Limitations That Hinder Access To Abortion
Services And Harassment Towards Abortion Providers And Facilities.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would also prohibit
requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by
the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or
implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities."
[Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Codify Factors That Limit Abortion Access In Court,
Including Restrictions That Impede Providers' Abilities From
Providing Abortions, Limitations That Risk The Health Of Patients,
Restrictions On The Availability And Number Of Facilities,
Increasing Abortion Costs, And Imposing Penalties Not Applicable To
Other Health Care Providers. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"It would specify factors that courts may consider to determine
whether a requirement or limitation impedes access to abortion
services, including whether it interferes with providers' ability to
provide services; poses a risk to patients' health; is likely to
delay or deter patients in accessing services or necessitate
in-person visits that would not otherwise be required; is likely to
result in a decreased availability of services in a state or region;
is likely to result in increased costs of providing or obtaining
services; or imposes penalties that are not imposed on other health
care providers for comparable conduct." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Require Defendants Of Abortion Limitations To
Demonstrate That The Limitation Would Advance Abortion Services And
Why A Less Restrictive Measure Would Be Ineffective. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "It would require a party defending a
requirement or limitation to establish that it significantly
advances the safety of abortion services or patient health and that
such goals cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative
measure." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Allow The Department Of Justice, Health Care
Providers And Individuals To Sue States Or Governmental Officials
For Imposing Any Abortion Limitations. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "It would authorize the Justice Department, health care
providers and private individuals and entities to bring a civil
action in U.S. district court for injunctive relief against any
state or government official charged with implementing or enforcing
a requirement or limitation challenged as a violation of rights
established by the bill." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Authorize District Courts To Grant Equitable Relief
And Award Costs Of Litigation To The Prevailing Plaintiff In
Lawsuits Pertaining To Abortion Access Restrictions. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "It would authorize district courts to
award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary
or permanent injunctive relief, and to award costs of litigation to
a prevailing plaintiff. It would require courts to 'liberally
construe' provisions of the bill to effectuate its purposes."
[Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Protect An Individuals' Right To An Abortion And
Put In Statute Health Care Providers' Right To Provide Abortions
Before Fetal Viability Without Limitations Imposed By States.
According to NPR, "The Women's Health Protection Act would protect a
person's ability to decide to continue or end a pregnancy and would
enshrine into law health care providers' ability to offer abortion
services 'prior to fetal viability' without restrictions imposed by
individual states, like requiring special admitting privileges for
providers or imposing waiting periods." [NPR,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Establish A Statutory Right To Provide Abortions
And A Corresponding Right For Patients To Receive Abortions, Free
From Restrictions Specific To Abortion Facilities That Hinder
Access. According to Act For Women, "WHPA would create a statutory
right for health care providers to provide abortion care, and a
corresponding right for their patients to receive that care, free
from medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion and
impede access." [Act For Women, Accessed on
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access Even If The Supreme Court
Were To Rule To Weaken Abortion Rights. According to Vox, "The
proposed federal law would provide sweeping protections that ensure
that people have abortion access even if the Supreme Court rules to
weaken reproductive rights. " [Vox,
2/28/22]
While The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access, The Bill Would Not
Supersede Laws Regarding Insurance Coverage For Abortions.
According to Vox, "It wouldn't, however, supersede laws addressing
insurance coverage for abortions." [Vox,
2/28/22]
The Measure Would Prohibit Restrictions Imposed By States,
Including Mandatory Waiting Periods And Limitation On When A
Pregnancy Can Be Terminated. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"The bill would prohibit some state-level restrictions such as bans
on mandatory waiting periods and limits on when during pregnancy an
abortion can be performed." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/21]
The Bill Would Ban Restrictions On Abortions After Fetal Viability
When The Pregnant Individual's Life Is At Risk. According to NPR,
"It also would prohibit restrictions on abortion after fetal
viability 'when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating
health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a
risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.'" [NPR,
9/24/21]
Republicans Argued The Bill Was Too Extreme For Limiting States'
Abilities To Regulate Abortions. According to NPR, "Republicans
argued that the bill goes too far, essentially limiting a state's
ability to regulate or restrict abortions." [NPR,
9/24/21]
Roe V. Wade Protected The Right To An Abortion Before Fetal
Viability, Typically 23 Or 24 Weeks. According to Reuters, "The
right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, typically around
23 or 24 weeks, has been protected under the Constitution since the
Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade." [Reuters,
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Forbid Unnecessary Restrictions On Abortion,
Including Forced Waiting Periods, Counseling And Ultrasounds.
According to Act For Women, "WHPA protects the right to access
abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on
abortion---including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling,
two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds." [Act For Women,
Accessed on
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Supersede State Laws Restricting Abortions And
Effectively Neutralize State Laws In 19 States That Have Hindered
Abortion Access Or Almost Banned Abortion. According to Vox, "The
Women's Health Protection Act would enshrine into federal law the
right to access and perform an abortion, and it would supersede
state laws on the issue. That's notable because it would effectively
neutralize laws in 19 states that have sought to severely curb
access to abortion or ban it altogether." [Vox,
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Forbid Six-Week And 20-Week Abortion Bans.
According to Vox, "If passed, the Women's Health Protection Act
would bar six-week and 20-week bans on abortions. " [Vox,
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Prevent "Medically Unnecessary" Abortion
Restrictions, Including Mandatory Waiting Periods, Counseling,
Telemedicine Bans, And Several Policies That Have Forced The Closure
Of Abortion Clinics. According to The Washington Post, "The bill
would eliminate a list of what proponents describe as 'medically
unnecessary' antiabortion restrictions, including mandatory waiting
periods, antiabortion counseling, telemedicine bans and various
regulations on the layout, structure and staffing policies at
abortion clinics, which have forced many clinics to shutter." [The
Washington Post,
2/28/22]
The Bill Would Ensure Health Care Providers Have The Right To
Provide Abortions Without Limitations, Including Restrictions Prior
To Fetal Viability. According to Reuters, "The Women's Health
Protection Act, co-sponsored by 48 Senate Democrats, states that
healthcare providers should be able to provide abortions without a
number of barriers -- including restrictions on abortions prior to
fetal viability, which many states currently have in place."
[Reuters,
2/28/22]
The U.S. Attorney General Would Be Able To Sue Any State Or
Government Official For Imposing Abortion Restrictions. According
to Reuters, "It states that the U.S. Attorney General can sue any
state or government official who violates the terms of the law."
[Reuters,
2/28/22]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Prohibiting The Defense Department
From Paying Or Reimbursing Abortion-Related Costs. In June 2024,
Fitzpatrick voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly,
"amendment no. 55 that would prohibit the Defense Department from paying
for or reimbursing certain expenses relating to abortion services." The
vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025
National Defense Authorization Act. The House adopted the amendment by a
vote of 214 to 207. [House Vote 263,
6/13/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/13/24;
Congressional Actions,
H.Amdt.989;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8070]
The Amendment Prohibited Reimbursements For Individuals That Had
To Travel For Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"The bill is peppered with familiar GOP-favored provisions that
would bar spending on [...] subsidizing troops' travel to obtain
abortions." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/14/24]
The Amendment Followed A House-Passed Amendment To The FY 2024
NDAA That Overturned A Defense Memorandum Permitting Reimbursements
For Travel To Receive Reproductive Care. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "The House waded through controversial
amendments to the fiscal 2024 defense authorization on Thursday,
adopting multiple provisions that could threaten the bill's final
passage. [...] The House earlier Thursday adopted an amendment
from Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, to rescind a Defense Department
policy that reimburses servicemembers who must travel to obtain
reproductive health care. Democrats have promised to vote en masse
against the bill if that provision is included." [Congressional
Quarterly, 7/14/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted To Prohibit The Use Of VA Funding To Provide
Abortions Or Allow Abortion Counseling. In July 2023, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2024, which would "also prohibit the use of the bill's funds to provide
abortions, to implement a September 2022 VA rule that allows abortion
counseling and establishes exceptions for the prohibition on abortions
in the medical benefits package for veterans and civilian beneficiaries,
to provide surgical procedures or hormone therapies for gender-affirming
care, and to fly or display a flag over a VA facility or national
cemetery that is not the U.S. flag, military-related or another
government jurisdiction" The vote was on passage. The House passed the
bill by a vote of 219 to 211, thus the bill was sent to the Senate.
[House Vote 380,
7/27/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/27/23;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
4366]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted To Repeal A 2022 Defense Department Policy
Regarding Reproductive Health Care And Prohibit The DoD From Paying For
Abortion Services. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2024, which would "repeal a 2022 Defense Department memorandum
regarding access to reproductive health care and prohibit the department
from paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services."
The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to
210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 328,
7/14/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/14/23;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2670]
The Provision Of The FY 2024 NDAA Would Reverse A DoD Policy That
Reimburses Expenses For Military Members Who Traveled For Abortion
Services. According to Reuters, "The House voted 221 to 213 for an
amendment that would reverse the Defense Department's policy of
reimbursing expenses for service members who travel to obtain an
abortion." [Reuters,
7/14/23]
The Abortion Reimbursement Policy Sought To Help Military Members
In Need Of Abortion Services Who Were Stationed In States With
Abortion Bans. According to Reuters, "The Pentagon travel
reimbursement policy is aimed at helping those in the military or
family members who are seeking an abortion but stationed in states
that have outlawed it." [Reuters,
7/14/23]
2023: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment That Would Repeal A
Reproductive Health Care Policy In The Defense Department And Prohibit
The Department From Paying For Abortion Services. In July 2023,
according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against an
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2024, which would "repeal a 2022 Defense Department memorandum regarding
access to reproductive health care and prohibit the department from
paying for or reimbursing expenses relating to abortion services." The
vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the
amendment by a vote of 221 to 213. [House Vote 300,
7/13/23; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/23;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2670;
Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.
222]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted To Prohibit Individuals Acting Under State Law
From Restricting An Individual's Access To Out-Of-State Abortion
Services And Prohibit The Restriction Of Interstate Movement Against Any
FDA-Approved Abortion Drug. In July 2022, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the Ensuring Women's Right to
Reproductive Freedom Act, which would "prohibit individuals from
interfering with patients' ability to access to abortion services in
another state where the services are legal. Specifically, it would
prohibit any person acting under color of state law from preventing,
restricting or retaliating against health care providers' ability to
provide abortion services that are legal in the provider's state to
patients who do not reside in that state; a person's ability to assist
in providing such services; or a person's ability to travel or assist
another person traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. It
would also prohibit individuals from preventing, restricting or
retaliating against the interstate movement of any drug approved by the
Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a pregnancy." The
vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 223-205, thus
the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive
action on the bill. [House Vote 362,
7/15/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/15/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8297]
The Bill Would Permit The U.S. Attorney General Or A Harmed
Individual To Sue In Federal Court Against An Individual Who
Violates The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would
allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a
civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive
relief against an individual who violates the prohibitions."
[Congressional Quarterly,
7/15/22]
The Bill Would Reaffirm The Right For An Individual Seeking
Abortion Services To Travel Across State Lines Without
Restrictions. According to The Washington Post, "Another bill, the
Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, would reaffirm
the right for someone seeking an abortion to travel freely across
state lines. The House passed that measure, 223-205, with three
Republicans --- Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Brian
Fitzpatrick (Pa.) --- joining all Democrats in backing the bill."
[The Washington Post,
7/15/22]
Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher (D) From Texas: Prohibiting Travel
Restrictions For Abortion Access Was Consistent With The
Constitutional Right To Interstate Travel. According to The New
York Times, "Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Democrat of Texas, said
her bill prohibiting states from enacting or enforcing laws
restricting travel to obtain an abortion was consistent with the
constitutional right to interstate travel." [New York Times,
7/15/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate
Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July
2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the
"Johnson, R-La., 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 209-219. [House Vote 361,
7/15/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/15/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8297]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate
Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July
2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against
the "adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House
consideration of [...] the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive
Freedom Act (HR 8297)." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The
House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304,
7/13/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8297;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1224]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Changing The Bill's Title
From The "Ensuring Access To Abortion Act Of 2022" To The "Ensuring
Women's Right To Reproductive Freedom Act." In July 2022, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick effectively voted against the
manager's amendment to the bill that would "change the title of the bill
from the 'Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022' to the 'Ensuring
Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.'" The vote was on the
adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204, thus
the amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 304,
7/13/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8297;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1224]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate
Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July
2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted against
the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and
possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide
for House consideration of [...] the Ensuring Women's Right to
Reproductive Freedom Act (HR 8297)." The vote was on a motion to order
the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208.
[House Vote 303,
7/13/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/13/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
8297;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1224]