¶ Overview
- Cornyn was top rated by anti-choice organizations and celebrated the Dobbs decision.
- Cornyn voted to confirm anti-choice judges.
- Cornyn voted for federal 20-week abortion bans.
- Cornyn voted to restrict access to private insurance plans that offered abortion coverage.
¶ Cornyn Was Bad For Women And Sought To Restrict Abortion Rights
¶ Cornyn Was Top Rated By Anti-Choice Orgs And Celebrated The Dobbs Decision
2025: Cornyn Received An “A+ Pro-Life Score” From Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America And Claimed “The Right To Life” Was “Among The Unalienable Rights All Of Us Are Granted By Our Creator.” Senator John Cornyn tweeted, “I am honored to once again receive an A+ pro-life rating from @sbaprolife. The right to life is among the unalienable rights all of us are granted by our Creator & I will never stop fighting for our most vulnerable.” [Twitter, @JohnCornyn, 1/24/25]
2022: Cornyn Celebrated The Overturning Of Roe V. Wade. Senator John Cornyn tweeted, “Today, the Court has restored one of the core principles of our Constitution with this landmark ruling. This decision correctly returns the authority of states to decide the limits on abortion and will save countless innocent lives.” [Twitter, @JohnCornyn, 6/24/22]
¶ Cornyn Fought To Overturn Roe V. Wade
2020: Cornyn Signed A Brief Asking The Supreme Court To Consider Overturning Roe V. Wade. According to Fox News, “Several hundred members of Congress filed ‘amicus,’ or supporting, briefs in a closely watched upcoming Supreme Court case that could decide the future of abortion access. The brief from 207 mostly GOPers included signatures from Sens. Mitt Romney, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio and Reps Steve Scalise and Liz Cheney.” [Fox News, 1/2/20]
¶ Cornyn Voted To Confirm Brantley Starr To The District Courts; Starr Worked To Ban The Safest Method Of Ending Second-Trimester Pregnancies And Defunding Planned Parenthood
2019: Cornyn Voted For The Confirmation Of Brantley Starr To Be A U.S. District Judge For The Northern District Of Texas. In July 2019, Cornyn voted for the confirmation of Brantley Starr to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote would be a “confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brantley Starr of Texas to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate approved the confirmation by a vote of 54-36. [Senate Vote 255, 7/31/19; Congressional Quarterly, 7/31/19; Congressional Actions, PN512]
- The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights: Starr Defended A Texas Law Banning “The Safest And Most Common Method” Of Ending Second-Trimester Pregnancies. According to The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, “Mr. Starr has also defended a restrictive anti-choice Texas law – which is being challenged in court – that bans the safest and most common method of ending second-trimester pregnancies. In a court filing, Mr. Starr wrote: ‘The prohibition of this brutal, gruesome, and inhumane procedure promotes respect for the dignity of the life of the unborn.’” [The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, 4/9/19]
- Starr Supported Defunding Planned Parenthood Through Terminating Its Medicaid Agreements. According to The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, “Mr. Starr has defended Texas in its efforts to defund Planned Parenthood by terminating its Medicaid agreements, which allow Planned Parenthood to provide cancer screenings and other critical health care services to thousands of women throughout the state.” [The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, 4/9/19]
¶ Cornyn Voted To Confirm Lawrence VanDyke To The Circuit Courts; VanDyke Defended A 20 Week Abortion Ban
2019: Cornyn Voted For The Confirmation Of Lawrence VanDyke To Be A U.S. Circuit Judge For The 9th Circuit. In December 2019, Cornyn voted for the confirmation of Lawrence VanDyke to be a U.S. circuit judge for the 9th Circuit. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote would be a “confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Lawrence VanDyke of Nevada to be a U.S. district circuit for the 9th Circuit.” The vote was on confirmation. The Senate approved the confirmation by a vote of 51-44. [Senate Vote 391, 12/11/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/19; Congressional Actions, PN1175]
- VanDyke Co-Authored An Amicus Brief Defending A 20 Week Abortion Ban In Arizona. According to the League of Conservation Voters, “VanDyke coauthored an amicus brief defending Arizona’s 20 week abortion ban, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should take up the case in order to review and overturn the precedents established by Roe v. Wade.” [League of Conservation Voters, 10/19]
¶ Cornyn Voted For 20-Week Abortion Bans With No Exemptions For Mother’s Health
2018: Cornyn Effectively Voted For The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Which Banned Abortion After 20-Weeks. In January 2018, Cornyn voted for legislation banning abortion after the fetus is 20-weeks old. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later and would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban, with certain exceptions. The bill would require a second doctor trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present for abortions where the fetus has the ‘potential’ to survive outside the womb.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 51 to 46. [Senate Vote 25, 1/29/18; Congressional Quarterly, 1/29/18; Congressional Actions, S. 2311]
- 99 Percent Of Abortions Were Before 21 Weeks And Those After Are Due To Complex Situations. According to Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances. For example, severe fetal anomalies and serious risks to the woman’s health — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.” [Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Accessed 4/21/25]
2015: Cornyn Effectively Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions After 20-Weeks Gestation Except In Cases Of Rape Or Incest, But Would Erect New Barriers Such As Requiring Rape Victims To Document That They Received Prior Medical Treatment Or Counseling. In September 2015, Cornyn effectively voted for a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and would impose criminal penalties on doctors that violated the ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, “prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later, except in cases of rape, incest against a minor or when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. Specifically, it would provide an exemption for pregnancies that are the result of rape against adult women if the woman obtained counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours before the abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor would also be exempt from the ban if the rape or incest had been reported before the abortion to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The measure would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. The measure also would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to an infant born at the same gestational age through natural birth.” The vote was on cloture and the Senate rejected the bill 54 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to invoke cloture. The House had earlier passed the bill. [Senate Vote 268, 9/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
- Bill Would Sentence Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both. It prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however, either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
- Opponents Of The Bill Said The Exceptions For Health Of The Mother Were Inadequate. According to Congressional Quarterly, “They also say the bill lacks adequate health exceptions for the mother, as a doctor would have to wait until a condition was life-threatening before performing an abortion. Serious but non-life-threatening conditions couldn’t be treated under this ban, they say, which could result in permanent health issues such as infertility.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
- Bill Created Barriers For Exceptions In The Case Of Rape Or Incest. According to Congressional Quarterly, “And while the original bill’s rape and incest provisions were onerous, they say the new language erects new barriers, including requiring rape victims to document that they received prior medical treatment or counseling, and that a second doctor be present for the abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
¶ Cornyn Voted To Restrict Access To Private Insurance Plans That Provide Abortion Coverage
2017: Cornyn Effectively Voted To Restrict Access To Private Insurance Plans That Provide Abortion Coverage. In July 2017, Cornyn effectively voted for legislation that would have, according to Planned Parenthood, “restructured the tax credits in the underlying legislation in order to restrict coverage of abortion. This Strange Amendment was not about segregating federal funds from abortion – it was really about restricting access to safe and legal abortion. This proposal needlessly restricted women’s access to private plans that offer abortion coverage. Health plans participating in the Marketplace may already choose whether or not to offer coverage of abortion – unless state law prohibits or requires abortion coverage.” The underlying legislation was the legislative vehicle for Trumpcare. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline for the amendment, which required a three-fifths majority. The Senate rejected the motion, thereby defeating the amendment, by a vote of 50 to 50. [Senate Vote 174, 7/27/17; Planned Parenthood Action Congressional Scorecard, Accessed 4/21/25; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 389; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
2017: Cornyn Effectively Voted Against Requiring 60 Votes To Consider Legislation That Would Reduce Reproductive Health Care Coverage And Birth Control Coverage From The Affordable Care Act. In January 2017, Cornyn voted against waiving a point of order against an amendment that said, according to the text of the amendment, “(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that makes women sick again by eliminating or reducing access to women’s health care, including decreases in access to, or coverage of, reproductive health care services including contraceptive counseling, birth control, and maternity care, and primary and preventive health care as afforded to them under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148). (b) Legislation That Makes Women Sick Again.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘makes women sick again’ with respect to legislation refers to any provision of a bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report, that would— […] (C) permitting discrimination against providers who provide reproductive health care benefits or services to women; or […] (3) eliminate, or reduce the scope or scale of, the benefits women would have received pursuant to the requirements under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the amendments made to that title. (c) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three- fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).” The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 budget resolution designed to being the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, which could be passed by a majority vote. The vote was on a motion to waive the budget act in relation to the amendment. The vote required a three-fifths vote for approval. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49 to 49. [Senate Vote 23, 1/11/17; Congressional Record, 1/11/17; Vox, 1/3/17; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 82; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 3]