2022: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. 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 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Defense Department From Paying Or Reimbursing Abortion-Related Costs. In June 2024, Schweikert voted for , 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: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Use Of VA Funding To Provide Abortions Or Allow Abortion Counseling. In July 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted For 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, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Individuals Acting Under State Law From Restricting An Individual's Access To Out-Of-State Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting The Restriction Of Interstate Movement Against Any FDA-Approved Abortion Drug. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. 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 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]