Abortion

Deb Fischer Bad On Abortion And Family Planning

Fischer Supported A 20-Week Abortion Ban:

• Fischer supported the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which banned abortion after 20 weeks.
  
   
• Fischer supported 2015 legislation that prohibited abortion after 20 weeks. 
  
   
• Fischer supported Nebraska’s 2010 ban on abortions after 20 weeks.
  
   

Fischer Opposed Abortion Access:

• Fischer voted against codifying abortion rights.
  
   
• Fischer supported informed consent laws.
  
   
• Fischer voted to prohibit insurance providers from covering abortion. 
  
   
• Fischer joined an amicus brief “calling on the Supreme Court to limit access” to mifepristone.
  
   
• Fischer voted to require an evaluation of “risk factors” prior to the performance of an abortion. 

• Fischer voted to prohibit the telehealth administration of drug-induced abortions.

Fischer Blocked Abortion Funding:

• Fischer voted for an amendment that would prohibit funding for down syndrome abortions or other chromosomal conditions.
  
   
• Fischer voted to prohibit federal funding for abortion services and prohibit federal funds to states and localities that penalize entities that do not cover abortions.
  
   
• Fischer voted for an amendment that prohibited the use of American Rescue Plan Act funds for abortion services.
  
   
• Fischer voted to disapprove an October 2021 HHS rule that removed restrictions on Title X funding for counseling and referrals related to abortion services.
  
   
• Fischer voted to disapprove a VA rule that allowed for VA coverage of abortion counseling and abortion services in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother were endangered.

Fischer Supported Penalties For Providers Of Abortions After 20 Weeks:

• Fischer voted for an amendment that created penalties for providers who conducted elective abortions at or after 20 weeks of gestation. 
  
   

Fischer Was Endorsed By Anti-Abortion Groups:

• National Right To Life endorsed Fischer in her 2012 senate race.

• Nebraska Right To Life endorsed Fischer in her 2012 and 2018 senate bids.

• SBA Pro-Life endorsed Fischer in her 2012 and 2018 senate bids. 

Fischer Pushed An Anti-Abortion Rhetoric:

• Fischer promoted abortion misinformation. 
  
   
• Fischer called abortion “a violence issue.”
  
   

Fischer Supported The Blunt Amendment: 

• Fischer supported allowing employers to claim exemptions to the ACA’s provisions on health care and contraception coverage on the basis of religious and moral objections. 
  
   

Fischer Supported The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: 

• Fischer voted for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Fischer Opposed Access To Contraception:

• Fischer opposed ACA provisions for contraceptive access.
  
   
• Fischer opposed codifying access to contraceptives. 
  
   
• Fischer voted against barring for-profit employers from excluding contraception, or any other federally required coverage, from the health coverage they provide their employees. 

Fischer Celebrated The Dobbs Decision:

• Fischer called Dobbs “the right decision” and believed there was “no constitutional right to abortion.”
  
   
• Fischer praised the Justices’ “courage” in the Dobbs decision and labeled it “a tremendous victory.”

Fischer Opposed Federal Funding For Abortion:

• Fischer routinely voted against federal funds for abortion and for health benefits covering abortions.

Fischer Supported The Hyde Amendment:

• Fischer voted for an anti-human trafficking bill that included a ban on using victim restitution funds to pay for an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.
  
   

Fischer Supported The Mexico City Policy:

• Fischer voted to continue the Mexico City restrictions on international family-planning funding.

Fischer Opposed Codifying Access To IVF And Fertility Treatments:

• Fischer voted against codifying access to IVF and fertility treatment.
  
   

Fischer Supported Requiring Parental Notification And Consent For Minors Seeking Abortions:

• Fischer voted for legislation to require parental notification for minors seeking abortion.
  
   
• Fischer voted for legislation to require parental consent for minors seeking abortion. 

Fischer Believed In Fetal Personhood:

• Fischer called for “restrictions based on science” and equated abortion restrictions with human rights protections. 
  
   
• Fischer claimed that “ultrasound and sonogram technology” had “revolutionized our ability to recognize human life in the womb.”
  
   
• Fischer said there was “no question about the humanity of the unborn.”
  
   
• Fischer pointed to advancements in prenatal care in defending the “humanity of the unborn.”

• Fischer believed that life began “at conception.”

Fischer Opposed Funding For Planned Parenthood:

• Fischer routinely voted to defund or restrict funds to Planned Parenthood. 
  
   

Fischer Opposed Prenatal Care For Undocumented Pregnant Minors:

• Fischer voted against extending prenatal coverage for undocumented pregnant minors under Medicaid after the coverage was terminated the previous year.
  
   

Fischer Wanted To Prohibit United Nations Funding Over Member Nations’ Involuntary Abortions:

• Fischer voted to support prohibiting funds to the United Nations, so long as any member nation required involuntary abortions.
  
   

20-Week Abortion Ban

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

2018: Fischer Effectively Voted For The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Which Banned Abortion After 20-Weeks. In January 2018, Fischer 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 10/11/17]

2021: Fischer Called The 20 Week Abortion Ban A “Science-Based Bill” And Was “Proud” To Support It. According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “‘I am proud to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions at and beyond the point where the unborn would experience significant pain. Nebraska was the first state to pass such legislation, and I was proud to support it in the Nebraska Unicameral. This science-based bill represents a crucial defense of life.’” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/28/21]

Prohibit Abortion After 20 Weeks Except In Cases Of Rape Or Incest

2015: Fischer 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, Fischer 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]
• Statement Of Administration Policy: Bill “Is An Assault On A Woman’s Right To Choose.” According to a Statement of Administration Policy, “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 36, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman's right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. […] If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.” [Statement of Administration Policy, 1/20/15]
• 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 Creates 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]

Nebraska’s 20 Week Ban

2010: Fischer Voted To Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks Except In The Case Of A Medical Emergency. In April 2010, Fischer voted for LB 1103. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature, “state[d] a requirement that, except in a case of medical emergency, no abortion shall be performed unless a physician has made a determination of probable gestational age of the unborn child. The Act then provide[d] a general prohibition on abortions performed when the probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks, unless, ‘in reasonable medical judgment,’ the woman is experiencing a medical emergency.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 44 to 5, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 1103; Nebraska Legislature, 2/25/10; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 4/13/10]

Abortion Access

Codifying Abortion Protections

2022: Fischer Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Codify The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Abortion Services And The Right For Patients To Receive Abortion Services. In May 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fischer voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer motion to proceed to the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-51. [Senate Vote 170, 5/11/22; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]

• Majority Leader Chuck Schumer Prompted Another Cloture Vote On The Bill After A Leaked U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Revealed The Court Was Poised To Overturn Roe V. Wade. According to NPR, “Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said last week the Senate would be a vote on the bill after a leaked draft opinion from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito revealed that the court is likely to overturn the 50-year-old protections of abortion rights granted under the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.” [NPR, 5/11/22]
• The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions Before Fetal Viability, Only Allowing Abortions After Viability Only When The Pregnancy Were To Pose A Life-Threatening Risk To The Pregnant Patient. According to The Washington Post, “The Democratic bill outlaws any limitation on abortion before fetal viability, while allowing abortions after 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.’” [The Washington Post, 5/11/22]

2022: Fischer Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Protect The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit Restrictions On Abortion. In February 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fischer voted against the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 46-48. [Senate Vote 65, 2/28/22; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/22; 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]

Informed Consent

2009: Fischer Voted To Require Individual Seeking Abortions To Be Informed Of The Medical Risks And Required That Ultrasounds Conducted By An Abortion Provider Be Viewable To The Patient An Hour Prior To The Procedure. In May 2009, Fischer voted for LB 675. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature. “intend[ed] to ensure that a woman’s consent to an elective abortion is one that is better informed. The bill ensure[d] that the woman seeking the abortion be provided with necessary information regarding certain additional medical risks associated with abortion and the availability of free ultrasounds at other facilities within the community. It further provide[d] that when an ultrasound is performed by the physician performing the abortion, that it be performed at least one hour prior to the abortion and that the ultrasound image be displayed such that it is viewable by the woman, should she so choose to view the ultrasound. These provisions are intended to ensure that the sufficiency of medical information conveyed by the doctor to the patient in the abortion context approaches the gravity of the act.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 40 to 5, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 675; Nebraska Legislature, 3/5/09; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 5/29/09]

Insurance Coverage

2011: Fischer Voted To Prohibit Insurance Providers That Cover Abortion From Participating In The State Health Insurance Exchanges And Prohibited Insurance From Covering Abortion Unless It Is Purchased As A Separate Rider. In May 2011, Fischer voted for LB 22. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature, “[would] affirmatively opt out from allowing health insurance plans that cover abortions to participate in the health insurance exchanges within the state of Nebraska. LB22 also seeks to prohibit private health insurance sold in Nebraska from providing coverage for an elective abortion except through an optional rider that is paid for solely by the insured.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 37 to 7, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 22; Nebraska Legislature, 2/15/11; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 5/12/11]

• Fischer Voted Against An Amendment That Created An Exception For Rape Or Incest. In March 2011, Fischer voted against Amendment 582 to LB 22. The amendment, according to the Omaha World-Herald, “Lawmakers adjourned for the day before voting on advancement of Legislative Bill 22. They rejected, on a 28-12 vote, an amendment that would have broadened the bill to allow private insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape or incest.” The amendment was rejected by a vote of 12 to 28. [Nebraska Legislature, 3/1/11; Omaha World-Herald, 3/2/11]

Mifepristone

2024: Fischer Joined An Amicus Brief “Calling on The Supreme Court To Limit Access” To Mifepristone. According to the Nebraska Examiner, “A total of 145 members of Congress from 36 states, who opposed access to mifepristone remaining as it is today, submitted their own 39-page brief in the case, calling on the Supreme Court to limit access. Signing onto the brief from Nebraska were Sen. Deb Fischer and Reps. Adrian Smith, Mike Flood and Don Bacon.” [Nebraska Examiner, 3/4/24]

Nebraska’s Women’s Health Protection Act

2010: Fischer Voted To Require An Evaluation Of “Risk Factors” Prior To The Performance Of An Abortion. In April 2010, Fischer voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature, “would require a reasonable evaluation of risk factors (physical, psychological, emotional, demographic, or situational) before an abortion is performed. It also authorizes civil remedies for the failure to comply with the act.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 40 to 9, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 594; Nebraska Legislature, 3/5/09; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 4/12/10]

• The Screening Would Assess Whether A Woman Felt “Pressured” To Receive An Abortion And If The Patient Was Likely To Face Mental Or Physical Complications. According to the North Platte Telegraph, “LB 594, which cleared second-round consideration on a 36-7 vote, would require doctors to do extensive screening of women seeking abortions in the state. Women would have to be assessed for any indication that they felt pressured to have an abortion, as well as for risk factors that could predispose them to mental or physical complications.” [North Platte Telegraph, 4/8/10]
• Supporters Argued The Bill Would Hold Abortion Care To Informed Consent Standards While Opponents Said It Would Require Providers To Act Against Their Best Judgment. According to the North Platte Telegraph, “Sen. Cap Dierks of Ewing, who introduced the measure, said it would hold abortion doctors to the same standards for informed consent as other doctors. But critics said it sets higher standards and requires abortion providers to act against their best medical judgment.” [North Platte Telegraph, 4/8/10]
• The Bill Was Ultimately Found Unconstitutional. According to the Star-Herald, “In the end, lawyers for the state and Planned Parenthood agreed: A law passed this spring requiring doctors to more extensively screen women preparing to have an abortion was unconstitutional. [...] Attorney General Jon Bruning announced Wednesday that he would not appeal a judge’s recent ruling that blocked the new anti-abortion law. Instead, Bruning joined with the entity that sued to block the law, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, in signing a joint request that the law be permanently blocked from going into effect because it was unconstitutionally vague, violated physicians’ rights of free speech and placed almost insurmountable barriers against women seeking abortion. It would have been a waste of money, the attorney general concluded, to defend what likely was a losing cause.” [Star-Herald, 8/18/10]

Reproductive Health Care Access

2024: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Expressing Support For Access To Reproductive Health Care Following The Dobbs Decision. In July 2024, Fischer voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the “Motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49 to 44. [Senate Vote 211, 7/10/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/24; Congressional Actions, S. 4554]

• The Bill Called For The Restoration Of The Access Guaranteed Under Roe V. Wade. “The resolution (S 4554) seeks to express support for the same level of access to reproductive health, including abortion, previously guaranteed under Roe v. Wade and would call for restoring and expanding protections provided under Roe.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/24]

Telehealth

2011: Fischer Voted To Prohibit The Telehealth Administration Of Drug-Induced Abortions. In May 2011, Fischer voted for LB 521. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature, “prevent[ed] abortion providers from absently administering chemical abortions through use of webcams. LB 521 requires chemical abortions to be administered in the physical presence of or in the same room as the performing physician. Presently, women seeking abortions in Iowa may procure a chemical abortion through use of a webcam, without ever having been examined by the abortion-providing physician. LB 521 seeks to prevent the proliferation of webcam abortions in Nebraska.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 38 to 9, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 521; Nebraska Legislature, 3/9/11; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 5/23/11]

• Supporters Of The Bill Claimed It Would Protect The Safety Of Women While Opponents Argued Drug-Induced Abortions Are No More Dangerous Than Over-The-Counter Pain Relievers And That Such A Ban Was Potentially Unconstitutional. According to the Omaha World-Herald, “Fulton said that requirement would enhance the safety of women. He cited potential side effects of the abortion drugs. But opponents disagreed, maintaining that Tylenol and Viagra are more dangerous than a drug-induced abortion. ‘This bill doesn't do anything but force a woman to get in her car and drive,’ said Lincoln Sen. Amanda McGill. [...] Sen. Brenda Council of Omaha argued that LB 521 was unconstitutional because it would block access to abortion allowed through the use of new medical developments. State law provides for the broad use of telemedicine, she said.” [Omaha World-Herald, 5/11/11]

Abortion Funding

Down Syndrome Abortions

2021: Fischer Voted For An Amendment That Would Prohibit Funding For Down Syndrome Abortions Or Other Chromosomal Conditions. In August 2021, Fischer voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to prohibit funding for abortions of unborn children with Down syndrome or other chromosomal conditions.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 49-50. [Senate Vote 350, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3331; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]

Hyde And Weldon Amendments

2021: Fischer Voted For An Amendment That Would Be Consistent With Hyde And Weldon Amendments And Prohibit Federal Funding For Abortion Services Or Prohibit Federal Funds To States And Localities That Penalize Entities That Do Not Cover Abortions. In August 2021, Fischer voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to prohibit federal funding for abortions or federal funding to state or local governments that discriminate against entities that do not provide, cover or refer for abortions, consistent with the Hyde and Weldon amendments.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 50-49. [Senate Vote 336, 8/10/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/10/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3792; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]

Prohibiting American Rescue Plan Funds

2021: Fischer Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Prohibit Using American Rescue Plan Act Funds For Abortion Services. In March 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fischer voted for the “motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Murray, D-Wash., point of order that the Lankford amendment no. 1031 to the Schumer, D-N.Y., substitute amendment no. 891 to the bill is not germane and thus violates section 313(b)(1)(d) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment would make conforming changes to insert the bill's provisions related to public health programs and domestic violence prevention and support programs into the December 2020 omnibus appropriations and coronavirus relief law, which would prohibit the use of funds for abortion services.” The vote was on a motion to waive. The Senate failed to acquire a 3/5 majority and rejected the motion by a vote of 52-47. [Senate Vote 94, 3/6/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 1031; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 891; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1319]

Title X Family Planning Rule

2022: Fischer Effectively Voted To Disapprove An October 2021 HHS Rule That Removed Restrictions On Title X Funding For Counseling And Referrals Related To Abortion Services And Made Several Modifications To The Family Planning Program, Including To Advance Health Equity And Expand Access To Contraceptives. In April 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fischer voted for the “motion to proceed to the joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the October 2021 Health and Human Services Department rule related to the Title X family planning program. The 2021 rule took effect on November 8, 2021, and removed restrictions on Title X funding for counseling and referrals related to abortion services, which were imposed by a March 2019 rule. It also made several modifications to the family planning program, including provisions related to updated standards of care, client-centered approaches, advancing health equity, and expanding individuals' access to a range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods. Under the measure, the October rule would have no force or effect, and Trump-era restrictions and standards under the 2019 rule would be effectively reinstated.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-49. [Senate Vote 140, 4/27/22; Congressional Quarterly, 4/27/22; Congressional Actions, S.J. Res. 41]

• The Resolution Would Restore A Ban On Clinics That Receive Federal Funds From Referring Pregnant individuals To Abortion Providers, Which Was W Trump-Era Rule That Was Reversed By The Biden Administration In 2021. According to Bloomberg Law, “The Senate plans this week to take up a resolution to restore a prohibition on clinics that receive federal money from advising women on ending their pregnancies. A now-defunct regulation barring clinics in the federal program known as Title X from making referrals to abortion providers was a major victory for the Trump administration. The Biden administration reversed it in a 2021 rule.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/27/22]
• According to The Guttmacher Institute, The Trump-Era Rule That Restricted Title X Clinics Led To The Withdrawal Of Almost 25% Of Participants From The Program And Reduced The Ability To Provide Contraceptive Services To Almost 1.6 Million Patients. According to Bloomberg Law, “The Trump-era regulation barring Title X clinics from making referrals to abortion providers resulted in almost 25% of participants in the program leaving, Guttmacher Institute data show. It also reduced the Title X network’s capacity to provide women with contraceptive services by at least 46%, or roughly 1.6 million patients.” [Bloomberg Law, 4/27/22]

VA Abortion Benefit Rule

2023: Fischer Effectively Voted To Disapprove A VA Rule That Allowed For VA Coverage Of Abortion Counseling And Abortion Services In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or When The Life Of The Mother Were Endangered. In April 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fischer voted for the “motion to proceed to the joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the September 2022 Veterans Affairs Department rule that reversed longstanding VA regulations excluding medical benefit coverage for abortion counseling and procedures. The rule allows for coverage of abortion counseling and for coverage of abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant beneficiary would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term, under veterans' TRICARE medical benefits and the VA's Civilian Health and Medical Program (CHAMPVA). The rule took effect on Sept. 9, 2022. Under the measure, the rule would have no force or effect.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 48 to 51. [Senate Vote 90, 4/19/23; Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23; Congressional Actions, S.J. Res. 10]

• The Joint Resolution Would Disapprove A VA Rule That Would Allow The VA To Provide Abortions To Veterans And Beneficiaries In Cases Of Life Endangerment. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Senate on Wednesday rejected, 48-51, a procedural vote on a joint resolution introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., that would disapprove of a Veterans Affairs Department rule related to abortion. In September, the VA issued an interim final rule that would allow the department to provide abortions to pregnant veterans and their beneficiaries in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest. The policy would override any state policies that limit abortion in these circumstances.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23]
• The VA Rule Would Permit Clinics To Discuss Options With Pregnant Patients And Provide Limited Abortion Access Under The Civilian Health And Medical Program Of The VA. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The VA rule would also allow clinics to provide pregnant patients with information about their options and grant limited abortion access to individuals under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23]
• President Biden Threatened To Veto The Resolution Because It Hindered Patient Safety And Allowed For Political Interference Into Personal Choices. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The White House had released a statement of administration policy Wednesday stating that President Joe Biden would veto the resolution because it ‘undermines patient safety and invites political interference into deeply personal decisions made by pregnant veterans’ and beneficiaries.” [Congressional Quarterly, 4/19/23]

Fischer Claimed The VA Rule “Blatantly” Violated State Laws And Attacked The Extension Of “Abortion Services To Any Woman Who Considers Her Mental Or Emotional Health A Reason To Procure An Abortion.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “Not only does the rule set up VA medical facilities to blatantly violate state laws, it's also in clear conflict with Section 106 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, which explicitly prohibits the VA from providing abortion services. The rule is vague and extends abortion services to any woman who considers her mental or emotional health a reason to procure an abortion. The rule also extends taxpayer-funded abortions to certain veterans’ dependents and fails to institute any conscience protections for VA medical staff.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 2/23/23]

Abortions After 20 Weeks

Penalties For Abortion Providers

2021: Fischer Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Providers That Conduct Elective Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks Of Gestation. In August 2021, Fischer voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to establish penalties for providers of elective abortions at or after 20 weeks of gestation.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48-51. [Senate Vote 348, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3758; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]

Anti-Abortion Endorsements

National Right To Life

National Right To Life Endorsed Fischer In Her 2012 Race And Claimed She Supported “Legal Protection For Unborn Children” And Lauded Her Vote For Nebraska’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. According to a press release from National Right To Life, “National Right to Life is pleased to endorse pro-life state Senator Deb Fischer for election to the United States Senate from Nebraska. ‘Senator Deb Fischer is a strong advocate for life,’ stated Darla St. Martin, National Right to Life Co-Executive Director. ‘As a state senator, she voted for Nebraska’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, protecting babies who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.  Fischer supports legal protection for unborn children, and opposes government funding of abortion.’” [Press Release – National Right To Life, 5/18/12]

Nebraska Right To Life

Nebraska Right To Life Endorsed Fischer In Her 2012 Senate Race. According to Politico, “The endorsement by Governor Sarah Palin and Todd Palin continues the powerful momentum of Deb Fischer’s campaign for U.S. Senate. Two recent polls show Senator Deb Fischer quickly closing the gap between her and frontrunner Jon Bruning, including one that shows Bruning at 29.5 and Fischer at 25.6. In her campaign for U.S. Senate, Fischer has been endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life, SHE-PAC and Maggie’s List.” [Politico, 5/16/12]

Nebraska Right To Life Endorsed Fischer In Her 2018 Senate Race. According the Nebraska Right To Life Political Action Committee’s 2018 Primary Election Voter Guide, Fischer was the organization’s endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate. [Nebraska Right To Life, 2018 Primary Election Voter Guide, 2018, Accessed on 9/9/24]

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

SBA Pro-Life Endorsed Fischer In Her 2012 And 2018 Senate Bids; Fischer Was Proud To Support Policies That “Protect Unborn Children.” According to the Omaha World-Herald, “A national group that supports women who oppose abortion has endorsed U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. ‘Deb Fischer has an unwavering record of pro-life leadership,’ Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement Wednesday.  Fischer is up for re-election next year. In a statement, Fischer said she's proud "to support policies that empower women, protect unborn children, and provide resources to community health centers that truly provide quality health care for women.’ In 2012, when Fischer was running for her first term, the Susan B. Anthony List political action committee paid for radio ads in opposition to her opponent, former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey.” [Omaha World-Herald, 11/9/17]

Fischer Was “Honored” To Receive An “A+ Rating” From SBA And Touted Her “Pro-Life Policies” That Benefited “The Unborn.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) released the following statement today after receiving an "A+" rating on the Susan B. Anthony List National Pro-Life Scorecard. ‘I am honored to receive an A+ rating on the 2021 Susan B. Anthony List National Pro-Life Scorecard. I have always worked hard to introduce and support legislation that supports the right to life. I will continue to fight for prolife policies that benefit mothers and the unborn,’ said Senator Fischer” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/19/22]

Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

Fischer Pushed Abortion Misinformation

Fischer Pushed Claims Of Infanticide

Fischer Claimed The United States Was “One Of Only Four Countries” That Allowed “Abortion Up To The Day Of Birth.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fischer, “The United States is one of only four countries including China and North Korea with state laws that permit abortion up to the day of birth. Only seven countries in the entire world allow abortion after 20 weeks and sad to say we are one of them.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Claimed “Unborn Children Feel Pain As Early As 12 Weeks” And Alleged That “Babies Capable Of Feeling Pain Are Also Still Aborted.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fischer, “Recent studies have found that unborn children feel pain as early as 12 weeks because of the developing function of the nervous system. Babies this young are given pain medication during fetal surgeries. But in our country, babies capable of feeling pain are also still aborted.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Called For Congress To “Stop Subsidizing Abortion Giants Like Planned Parenthood” And Claimed Planned Parenthood Provided “Abortion Up Until The Point Of Birth.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fischer, “Though abortion law now lies with legislative bodies, with many state legislatures taking the lead, we can still protect life on the federal level. One of the most straightforward changes we can make in Congress is to stop subsidizing abortion giants like Planned Parenthood. Two-thirds of Americans want to limit abortion, so taxpayer money shouldn't be going to an organization that provides abortion up until the point of birth.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Called Abortion A “Violence Issue”

Fischer Said Abortion Was “Not A Women’s Issue” But Was Instead “A Violence Issue.” According to the Associated Press, “And GOP Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska told the activists: ‘Abortion is not a women's issue. It is not a men's issue. It is not a health care issue. It is a violence issue.’” [Associated Press, 3/13/14]

Blunt Amendment

Allow Employers To Claim Exemptions To Contraceptive Coverage Based On Religious Objections

2013: Fischer Voted To Support Allowing Employers To Claim Exemptions To ACA’s Provisions On Health Care And Contraception Coverage On The Basis Of Religious And Moral Objections. In March 2013, Fischer voted for an amendment that, according to the National Law Review, “would allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage on moral grounds.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care, in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 44 to 55. [Senate Vote 55, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/22/13; National Law Review, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 630; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]

• “Deficit-Neutral Reserve Funds” Do Not Actually Provide Funds And Generally Only Serve As A Way To Make A Political Statement. According to his book America’s Priorities, Charles S. Konigsberg explains that, “‘Reserve Funds’ are an optional component of a Budget Resolution that allow a Budget Resolution’s total spending and committee allocations to be adjusted upward to accommodate additional spending for a specifically defined purpose. Because most reserve funds require that the new legislation be ‘deficit neutral’ (i.e., paid for by new spending cuts or tax increases), the use of the term reserve fund is actually a misnomer, since a Budget Resolution ‘reserve fund’ does not provide any funds. In fact, the only scenarios in which a ‘reserve fund’ has any purpose at all (other than to make a political statement) is where a mechanism is needed to allow the Budget commission to Adjust committee allocations to accommodate a new program that is to be paid for by tax increases or spending cuts in other committee’s jurisdiction. If a new program is paid for by spending cuts within a committee’s own jurisdiction, there is no net increase in the committee’s spending or in total Federal spending, so no adjustments to the Budget Resolution are required, and ‘reserve fund’ authority is unnecessary.” [America’s Priorities: How The U.S. Government Raises and Spends $3,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) Per Year, p. 408, 2008]
• The Affordable Care Act Required Most Health Plans And Insurance Policies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception. According to a blog post on the Department of Health and Human Services website, “This law lowers the costs of health care for women, increases access to quality health care, and pays attention to the distinct health needs of women and families. […] The new health care law already requires most health plans and insurance policies to cover recommended preventive services at no additional cost. This means that, each year, a woman can have a well-woman visit with her doctor at no cost to her. It also means we can get free screenings for breast and cervical cancer; FDA-approved contraception; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for domestic violence; smoking cessation medications and services; and more.” [HHS Blog Post, 8/7/13]
• HHS Announced That While Contraception Coverage Must Be Included In Insurance, Some Religious Organizations Would Be Exempt From Paying For The Contraception Coverage; Other Religious Organizations That Employed People Outside Their Faith Were Given A Year To Comply. According to The White House Blog, “Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception. On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations including churches would be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception. Other religious organizations, including those that employ people of different faiths, can qualify for a one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law. In recent days, there has been some confusion about how this policy affects religious institutions. We want to make sure you have the facts: Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception. No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.  For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.” [The White House Blog, 2/1/13]
• The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Questioned The Validity Of HHS’s Religious Exemptions: “If There Is No Charge To The Plan Sponsor Or Enrollees, The Question Arises: What Funds Will The Insurer Use To Pay For Contraceptives, Sterilization Procedures, And Related Education And Counseling?” According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “In their announcement, HHS officials said that the proposal would ensure that no employers with religious objections would have to feel like they were supporting or paying for birth control coverage […] The idea is to keep coverage at arm’s length by requiring those institutions’ insurers to write separate policies for birth control needs. But the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] bishops asked: ‘If there is no charge to the plan sponsor or enrollees, the question arises: what funds will the insurer use to pay for contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling?’ HHS says the policies would be cost neutral. But the bishops say that there is only one funding stream available and that is employer premiums so the plan is ‘not truly separate.’” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Opponents Of HHS’s Contraception Mandate Criticized The Proposed HHS Rule For Failing To Include Exemptions For Private, Secular Employers Who Have Religious Or Moral Objections To Providing Birth Control Coverage For Their Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued 24 pages of objections in response to a rule the Department of Health and Human Services proposed on employer coverage of contraceptive services under the health care law. The official comments, filed this week, are sharply critical of the proposed rule for not including some kind of exemption for private, secular employers who have religious or moral objections to covering birth control for their workers. ‘Virtually all Americans who enroll in a health plan will ultimately be required to have contraceptive coverage for themselves and their dependents, whether they want it or not,’ said the bishops. They cited the case of a Bible publisher that’s filed suit against the proposal and been granted an injunction. In addition, the bishops raised numerous questions about a compromise the Obama administration issued that would set up a system under which separate, individual health insurance policies would be written for employees at colleges, hospitals and charities that have religious objections to providing coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Catholic Bishops Conference Argued That Morning-After Pill Is Equivalent To Abortion, Therefore, They Argued, Requiring Contraception Coverage Effectively Requires Coverage Of Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “[The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] also said that the requirement violates the health care law’s provision that says that no insurance plan will have to provide abortion services as an essential health benefit, since the bishops regard the morning-after pill -- which is approved as a contraceptive by the FDA -- as the equivalent of abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Amendment Opponents Argued That The Proposed Exemption Was Too Broad Because It Would Allow Any Employer To Refuse To Cover Any Health Care Services For Women Based Solely On The Religious And Moral Views Of The Employer. According to a statement on the floor by Sen. Murray in the Congressional Record, “Madam President, this amendment would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any health care services for women based on their own religious beliefs and moral convictions that have nothing to do with the health needs of those denied coverage. The compromise put forward by President Obama ensures that religious liberty is respected while ensuring that women can get access to the health care they need. Last year, Judge Carol Jackson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, ruled in support of this compromise, saying that Federal religious freedom law is ‘a shield, not a sword . . . it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others.’” [Congressional Record, 3/22/13]

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Passage

2019: Fischer Effectively Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In February 2019, Fischer effectively voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require health care practitioners to provide medical care to any infant that survives an abortion procedure, to the extent legally required for any infant born at the same gestational age.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 27, 2/25/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/19; Congressional Actions, S. 311]

• National Abortion Federation: “This Anti-Choice Bill Uses Inflammatory Language In Yet Another Attempt To Justify Politically-Motivated, Medically-Unnecessary Interference In The Practice Of Medicine, Interference That Threatens Women’s Access To Reproductive Health Care.” According to the National Abortion Federation, “This anti-choice bill uses inflammatory language in yet another attempt to justify politically-motivated, medically-unnecessary interference in the practice of medicine, interference that threatens women’s access to reproductive health care. It is an attempt to distract from the Trump-Pence assault on safe, legal abortion care and is intended to intimidate abortion providers so that they stop providing essential heath care. These bills are written by anti-choice politicians to score points with their extremist base; they disregard the health of women and their families. Today’s attempt to pass yet another inflammatory and medically unnecessary bill demonstrates, once again, that the only thing anti-choice politicians in Congress can agree upon is finding new ways to demonize women who need to access safe, legal abortion care.” [National Abortion Federation, 2/25/19]
• Comments Made By Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) On Late Term Abortion Were The Supposed Catalyst For This Bill. According to the Washington Post, “Republicans are moving aggressively to force Democrats to answer for legislation to ease restrictions on late-term abortions and the recent controversial comments by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, sensing a new opening on a divisive issue that could be a factor in the 2020 elections. President Trump criticized New York Democrats and the embattled Virginia governor in his State of the Union address this week, accusing lawmakers of allowing ‘a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth’ and Northam (D) of basically stating that ‘he would execute a baby after birth.’ […] As the Virginia legislature failed to pass a bill to reduce restrictions on late-term abortions, Northam was asked in a WTOP radio interview about abortions up to the point of delivery in instances when the mother’s life or health was at serious risk, which are permitted under current law. Northam said that the procedures are ‘done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.’” [Washington Post, 2/7/19]

Penalties For Abortion Providers

2021: Fischer Effectively Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Health Care Providers Who Do Not Provide The Same Medical Treatment To An Infant Who Survived An Abortion As Babies Born At The Same Gestational Age. In February 2021, Fischer voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the Durbin, D-Ill., point of order that the Sasse amendment no. 192 amendment is not germane and thus violates section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. The amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health care, including legislation to establish criminal and civil penalties for health care providers who do not provide the same degree of medical care for an infant who survives an abortion procedure as would be provided to another infant born at the same gestational age.” The vote was on a motion to waive. The Senate rejected the motion, failing to acquire 3/5 of the vote, by a vote of 52-48. [Senate Vote 23, 2/4/21; Congressional Quarterly, 2/4/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt 192; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 5]

• Senator Sasse’s Amendment Would Require Health Care Providers To Use All Resources To Care For Babies That Survive Abortion Procedures. According to The Hill, “Sasse offered an amendment that was narrowly defeated to require health care providers to use their full skills and resources to care for newborns that survive abortions.” [The Hill, 2/5/21]

Contraception

Affordable Care Act Coverage

2017: Fischer 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, Fischer 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, 1/3/07; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 82; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 3]

2013: Fischer Voted To Oppose Protecting ACA’s Health Care And Contraception Coverage Provisions For Women. In March 2013, Fischer voted against an amendment that, according to The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, would “protect women’s healthcare coverage and employer-provided contraceptive coverage authorized under the Affordable Care Act.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women’s access to health care, including primary and preventative health care, family planning and birth control, and employer-provided contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the Affordable Care Act.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 56 to 43. The underlying budget resolution later passed the Senate, but Congress had taken no further action on it as of September, 2013. [Senate Vote 54, 3/22/13; The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/21/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt 438; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]

• “Deficit-Neutral Reserve Funds” Do Not Actually Provide Funds And Generally Only Serve As A Way To Make A Political Statement. According to his book America’s Priorities, Charles S. Konigsberg explains that, “‘Reserve Funds’ are an optional component of a Budget Resolution that allow a Budget Resolution’s total spending and committee allocations to be adjusted upward to accommodate additional spending for a specifically defined purpose. Because most reserve funds require that the new legislation be ‘deficit neutral’ (i.e., paid for by new spending cuts or tax increases), the use of the term reserve fund is actually a misnomer, since a Budget Resolution ‘reserve fund’ does not provide any funds. In fact, the only scenarios in which a ‘reserve fund’ has any purpose at all (other than to make a political statement) is where a mechanism is needed to allow the Budget commission to Adjust committee allocations to accommodate a new program that is to be paid for by tax increases or spending cuts in other committee’s jurisdiction. If a new program is paid for by spending cuts within a committee’s own jurisdiction, there is no net increase in the committee’s spending or in total Federal spending, so no adjustments to the Budget Resolution are required, and ‘reserve fund’ authority is unnecessary.” [America’s Priorities: How The U.S. Government Raises and Spends $3,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) Per Year, p. 408, 2008]
• The Affordable Care Act Required Most Health Plans And Insurance Policies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception. According to a blog post on the Department of Health and Human Services website, “This law lowers the costs of health care for women, increases access to quality health care, and pays attention to the distinct health needs of women and families. […] The new health care law already requires most health plans and insurance policies to cover recommended preventive services at no additional cost. This means that, each year, a woman can have a well-woman visit with her doctor at no cost to her. It also means we can get free screenings for breast and cervical cancer; FDA-approved contraception; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for domestic violence; smoking cessation medications and services; and more.” [HHS Blog Post, 8/7/13]
• HHS Announced That While Contraception Coverage Must Be Included In Insurance, Some Religious Organizations Would Be Exempt From Paying For The Contraception Coverage; Other Religious Organizations That Employed People Outside Their Faith Were Given A Year To Comply. According to The White House Blog, “Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception. On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations including churches would be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception. Other religious organizations, including those that employ people of different faiths, can qualify for a one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law. In recent days, there has been some confusion about how this policy affects religious institutions. We want to make sure you have the facts: Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception. No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.  For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.” [The White House Blog, 2/1/13]
• The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Questioned The Validity Of HHS’s Religious Exemptions: “If There Is No Charge To The Plan Sponsor Or Enrollees, The Question Arises: What Funds Will The Insurer Use To Pay For Contraceptives, Sterilization Procedures, And Related Education And Counseling?” According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “In their announcement, HHS officials said that the proposal would ensure that no employers with religious objections would have to feel like they were supporting or paying for birth control coverage (See related story CQ HealthBeat, Feb. 1, 2013). The idea is to keep coverage at arm’s length by requiring those institutions’ insurers to write separate policies for birth control needs. But the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] bishops asked: ‘If there is no charge to the plan sponsor or enrollees, the question arises: what funds will the insurer use to pay for contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling?’ HHS says the policies would be cost neutral. But the bishops say that there is only one funding stream available and that is employer premiums so the plan is ‘not truly separate.’” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Opponents Of HHS’s Contraception Mandate Criticized The Rule For Failing To Include Exemptions For Private, Secular Employers Who Have Religious Or Moral Objections To Providing Birth Control Coverage For Their Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued 24 pages of objections in response to a rule the Department of Health and Human Services proposed on employer coverage of contraceptive services under the health care law. The official comments, filed this week, are sharply critical of the proposed rule for not including some kind of exemption for private, secular employers who have religious or moral objections to covering birth control for their workers. ‘Virtually all Americans who enroll in a health plan will ultimately be required to have contraceptive coverage for themselves and their dependents, whether they want it or not,’ said the bishops. They cited the case of a Bible publisher that’s filed suit against the proposal and been granted an injunction. In addition, the bishops raised numerous questions about a compromise the Obama administration issued that would set up a system under which separate, individual health insurance policies would be written for employees at colleges, hospitals and charities that have religious objections to providing coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Catholic Bishops Conference Argued That Morning-After Pill Is Equivalent To Abortion, Therefore, They Argued, Requiring Contraception Coverage Effectively Requires Coverage Of Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “[The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] also said that the requirement violates the health care law’s provision that says that no insurance plan will have to provide abortion services as an essential health benefit, since the bishops regard the morning-after pill -- which is approved as a contraceptive by the FDA -- as the equivalent of abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
• Opponents Of The Amendment Argued That The Provision Infringed On The Religious Rights Of Individuals And Offered A Competing Amendment. According to a statement on the floor by Sen. Johanns in the Congressional Record, “Mr. President, every Senator supports expanding access to health care. We may have strong differences on the best way to do it, but no one should doubt that commitment. However, we must also ensure that we protect deeply held religious beliefs of our citizens. In this regard, the Shaheen amendment—and the new health care law— gets it all wrong. In addition to growing government and slowing the economy, the law tramples on the rights of individuals. Later this afternoon, Senator FISCHER will offer a side-by-side to this amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Shaheen amendment.” [Congressional Record, 3/22/13]
• The Competing Amendment Would Have Allowed Employers To Claim Exemptions To ACA’s Provisions On Health Care And Contraception Coverage On The Basis Of Religious And Moral Objections. In March 2013, Sen. Deb Fischer proposed an amendment that, according to the National Law Review, “would allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage on moral grounds.” [National Law Review, 3/25/13]

Codifying Access To Contraceptives

2024: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Codifying Access To Contraceptives. In June 2024, Fischer voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 51 to 39. [Senate Vote 190, 6/5/24; Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/24; Congressional Actions, S.4381]

• The Bill Would Guarantee The Right Of Health Professionals To Provide Contraception And The Right Of Individuals To Access Contraception. According to CNN, “The bill – the Right to Contraception Act – would enshrine into federal law a right for individuals to buy and use contraceptives, as well as for health care providers to provide them. It would apply to birth control pills, the plan B pill, condoms and other forms of contraception.” [CNN, 6/5/24]
• The Bill Was A Response To Concerns Regarding Access To Contraception Following The Dobbs Decision And Justice Thomas’ Call To Reconsider The Precedent Established Regarding Access To Contraception Under The Griswold Decision. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Democrats say they are worried about access to contraception because the 1973 Roe decision was based, in part, on a 1965 contraception case known as Griswold v. Connecticut, which protected the rights of married couples to use contraception. Friday will mark the 59-year anniversary of that decision. […] This week, Democrats have amped up calls to protect contraception access, citing Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the Dobbs decision in which he calls for reconsidering precedent under Griswold.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/24]
• Republicans Argued The Bill Would Infringe On Religious Freedoms And Called For A Different Bill That Would Provide Priority Review For Some Oral Contraceptives And A Study Of Federal Spending On Contraception. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Republicans have criticized the contraception bill, saying one of its provisions would infringe on religious freedoms granted under a 1993 law referred to as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (PL 103-141). Instead, the GOP called for advancing an alternative contraception bill (S 4447) from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. Her bill would grant priority review for some over-the-counter oral contraceptives and commission a Government Accountability Office study documenting federal spending on contraception over the past 15 years.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/5/24]
• The Republican Version Of The Bill Would Not Include Access To Plan B, With Republicans Arguing That It Constitutes “Abortion Services” Despite The FDA Stating That Plan B Takes Effect Before A Pregnancy Begins. According to CNN, “Ahead of the vote on the Democrat-led bill, Ernst attempted to pass her alternative contraception bill by unanimous consent, but the request was blocked by Democrats. Asked how her effort is different from what Democrats want, Ernst said, ‘It does not include Plan B, which many folks on the right would consider abortive services. Big distinction. We want to prevent a pregnancy, not end a pregnancy.’ The emergency contraceptive pill sold as Plan B One-Step does not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb and does not cause an abortion, the US Food and Drug Administration has said. The pill, which is a strong dose of the birth control hormone levonorgestrel, prevents or delays the release of an egg from a woman’s ovary – a step that occurs well before pregnancy.” [CNN, 6/5/24]

Excluding Contraception From Health Coverage

2014: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Barring For-Profit Employers From Excluding Contraception,  Or Any Other Federally Required Coverage, From The Health Coverage They Provide Their Employees. In July 2014, Fischer effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would prohibit employers from refusing to cover contraception or any other type of health coverage guaranteed under federal law for their employees and dependents. It includes language that would ensure that exemptions for places of worship and religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations remain in place.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 43. [Senate Vote 228, 7/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14; Congressional Actions, S. 2578]

• Congressional Quarterly: If Enacted, Bill Would “Upend” Hobby Lobby Decision. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Senators blocked legislation Wednesday that would have required Hobby Lobby and other private employers with religious interests to pay for birth control. […] The bill (S 2578) would upend a Supreme Court ruling last month in a case involving Hobby Lobby, in which they argued that they should not have to cover employees’ contraception, as required by President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, because of the owner’s religious beliefs. The Supreme Court agreed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14]

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Fischer Celebrated The Dobbs Decision

Fischer Joined Senator Marco Rubio’s Resolution To “Celebrate” The Anniversary Of Roe Falling

Fischer Joined An Official Resolution To “Celebrate” The Two-Year Anniversary Of The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade. According to WFLA, “Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a resolution on Tuesday to ‘celebrate’ the anniversary of when the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. ‘This ruling made it clear there is no constitutional right to take the life of an unborn child and returned authority over abortion to the American people and their elected representatives,’ Rubio said in a statement. Seventeen other Republican senators signed on to the resolution: [...] Deb Fischer (Neb.).” [WFLA, 6/18/24]

Fischer Praised The Dobbs Decision As “A Tremendous Victory”

Fischer Called The Dobbs Decision “A Tremendous Victory” And Praised The “Noble Movement” That Paved Its Way. According to the Omaha World-Herald, “Organized by Nebraska Right to Life, local and state officials spoke at the event, including Gov. Jim Pillen, U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts, and U.S. Reps. Don Bacon and Mike Flood. The speakers shared excitement over the overturning of Roe v. Wade last summer. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the ruling that abortion is not a constitutional right in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade, leaving the legality of abortion to individual states to decide. ‘Dobbs was a tremendous victory,’ Fischer said. ‘It was the result of hard work, heart and commitment to a noble movement.’” [Omaha World-Herald, 1/28/23]

Fischer Praised The Justices’ “Courage” For Deciding Dobbs

Fischer Was “Grateful For Our Supreme Court Justices Who Showed Courage In Making This Landmark Decision” And Was “Optimistic” About “The Future Of The Pro-Life Movement.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “I am grateful for our Supreme Court Justices who showed courage in making this landmark decision. I'm very optimistic about the future of this country and the future of the pro-life movement.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 6/27/22]

Fischer Called Dobbs “The Right Decision” And Believed There Was “No Constitutional Right To Abortion”

Fischer Emphasized That She Has Always “Supported Pro-Life Policies That Show Compassion For Women And Their Unborn Children.” According to the Nebraska City News-Press, “Below are reactions from Nebraska officials to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.: ‘I have always supported pro-life policies that show compassion for women and their unborn children. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars have long questioned the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade. The justices made the right decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Center by affirming that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Today's ruling returns policy making decisions on this issue to state and federal lawmakers. It's going to take good-faith and empathy to address it.’” [Nebraska City News-Press, 6/29/22]

Fischer Hoped For The Dobbs Decision Before The Verdict Was Decided

Fischer Touted Her Amicus Brief In Support Of Dobbs And Affirmed Her Support For The Mississippi Abortion Ban. According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “The question at the heart of this case, which will be argued by Mississippi's first-ever woman attorney general, is clear: Should the Court uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion limit and leave room for states to make their own abortion policy? In July, I joined over 200 members of Congress in sending an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, in which we argue that the Court's answer to this question should be a resounding ‘yes.’” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 11/29/21]

Fischer Called Dobbs “An Opportunity To Bring The United States Into The 21st Century.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “Our laws are outdated, and America's unborn children are paying the price. In theDobbs case, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to bring the United States into the 21st century.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 11/29/21]vet

Federal Funding

Federal Funding For Abortion

2019: Fischer Effectively Voted For Legislation Prohibiting Federal Funds From Funding Abortions Or Health Benefits Covering Abortions. In January 2019, Fischer effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit[ed] federal funds from being used to fund abortions or to fund health benefits covering abortions.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The Senate rejected the motion, thereby defeating the bill, by a vote of 48 to 47. [Senate Vote 7, 1/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/19; Congressional Actions, S. 109]

2015: Fischer Effectively Voted For Expanding The ‘Hyde Amendment’ To Prevent Federal Money In A Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund From Being Used To Pay For Most Abortion Services. In April 2015, Fischer voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “remove[d] a provision in the bill that would state that amounts in the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund would be subject to limitations in the fiscal 2014 consolidated appropriations law prohibiting money appropriated under the law from being spent on abortions, except for cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger, to the same extent as if the money from the fund was appropriated under that law.” According to Planned Parenthood, the underlying bill, which established the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund that provided additional resources to survivors of human trafficking “ma[d]e permanent a prohibition of federal tax dollars from being used to pay for access to abortion care - a restrictive and harmful policy commonly referred to as the Hyde amendment.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 43 to 55. [Senate Vote 156, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Planned Parenthood, 2016 Congressional Scorecard; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 301; Congressional Actions, S. 178]

2015: Fischer Voted Against Reiterating The ‘Hyde Amendment’ Which Prevents Federal From Being Used To Pay For Most Abortion Services. In April 2015, Fischer voted against an amendment that would have, according to NARAL, “strike a reiteration of the Hyde amendment, a current-law public coverage ban on abortion care.” The underlying legislation that permanently patched the SGR reimbursement rate for Medicare physicians and reauthorized the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 43 to 57. [Senate Vote 140, 4/14/15; NARAL, 12/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1117; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]

2015: Fischer Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act’s Increased Medicaid Reimbursement Rate To OB/GYN’s. In April 2015, Fischer voted against an amendment that would have, according to Planned Parenthood, “extended enhanced Medicaid reimbursement for primary care physicians and expand it to include OB/GYN’s. This amendment would have also provide $500 million for the Title X family planning program and support training programs for women’s health nurse practitioners. Additionally, the Women's Access to Quality Health Care amendment would have removed a reference to a harmful provision commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment - a restrictive policy banning federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortion care - that was passed by the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 2.” The underlying legislation that permanently patched the SGR reimbursement rate for Medicare physicians and reauthorized the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 43 to 57. [Senate Vote 140, 4/14/15; Planned Parenthood, 2016 Congressional Scorecard; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 1117; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]

Insurance Subsidies

2017: Fischer Effectively Voted To Restrict Access To Private Insurance Plans That Provide Abortion Coverage. In July 2017, Fischer 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 5/1/18; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 389; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]

Hyde Amendment

Human Trafficking Funding

2015: Fischer Effectively Voted For Anti-Human Trafficking Bill That Included Ban On Using Victim Restitution Funds To Pay For An Abortion, Except In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or To Save The Mother’s Life. In March 2015, Fischer effectively voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would use fines and penalties against sex-trafficking perpetrators for more restitution and assistance funds for victims.” According to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, “At issue is a provision that would prohibit the money in a crime victim compensation fund — established by the bill and funded by fines from offenders — from being used towards abortion services. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the measure would provide about $30 million to help victims of human trafficking crimes recover. […] The provision bars federal dollars from being used to fund abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 42. Afterwards, the Senate set the bill aside, and moved on to other business. A month later, the Senate passed a compromise version of the legislation that became law. [Senate Vote 76, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/21/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]

• Republicans Said Restrictions On Using Federal Funds For Abortions – Known As The Hyde Amendment – Have Been Regularly Included In Appropriations Bills, As Well As Other Legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Republicans point to instances where the Hyde amendment — a provision barring the use of federal funds for abortions routinely added to appropriations bills — has appeared in a variety of legislation. ‘It’s not like the bipartisan provision now suddenly in question is anything new,’ [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell said.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/18/15]
• Democratic Opponents Of Abortion Restrictions In Bill Said It Expanded Hyde Amendment’s Reach From Covering Federally Provided Funds To Also Cover Fines And Penalties Paid By Criminals. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Meanwhile, Democrats argue that the abortion language in the bill is beyond the scope of the Hyde amendment. The victim restitution money does not come from federal funds, but rather the fines and penalties imposed on perpetrators. ‘This would be the first time that we’ve applied the Hyde amendment to such fines,’ Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont said Wednesday.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/18/15]
• Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards: Most “Human Trafficking Victims Are Women And Girls, And They Need Access To The Full Range Of Reproductive Health Care Services Without Barriers.” According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Democratic campaign apparatus, as well as those supporting of abortion rights like Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards, were critical of the language. ‘The Senate should protect victims of human trafficking but should not do so at the expense of women’s access to safe and legal abortion. The majority of human trafficking victims are women and girls, and they need access to the full range of reproductive health care services without barriers,’ Richards said in a statement. ‘The Senate should protect victims of human trafficking but should not do so at the expense of women’s access to safe and legal abortion. The majority of human trafficking victims are women and girls, and they need access to the full range of reproductive health care services without barriers.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15]
• Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Unanimously Backed The Bill In Committee, And Democrats Did Not Block The Bill’s Consideration By The Senate.  [Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/26/15; Congressional Actions, S. 178]
• Democrats Said They Had Been “Hoodwinked” On The Abortion Restriction’s Inclusion In The Current Human Trafficking Bill, Said It Was Not In List They Were Given Of Changes From The 2014 Version. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Democrats said they were effectively hoodwinked by Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas and other Republican senators with the inclusion of an expansion of the scope of the prohibition of federal funding on abortion known as the Hyde amendment. […] But Democrats who insist they were unaware say that shouldn’t have been necessary, because they received a list of changes from the base bill introduced last Congress. Sen. Charles E. Schumer said there was a list of changes from last year’s version of the legislation, and the anti-abortion piece ‘was not listed among them.’ ‘There was a representation made that the provision, the controversial provision, was not included in this bill. It turns out that it was. I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it, but the fact is the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it which we were told would not be included,’ Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois said.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15]
• Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid Said That, Now That Democrats Knew About The Abortion Language, They Would Block The Trafficking Bill Until Language Was Removed. According to Congressional Quarterly, “‘We’re on the bill. And these provisions, my caucus did not know about them. You can blame it on staff, blame it on whoever you want to blame it on, but we didn’t know it was in the bill,’ Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday. ‘The bill will not come off this floor as long as that language is in the bill.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15]
• Republicans Noted That Abortion Restrictions Had Been Present In The Publicly Available Bill Text, Argued Bill’s Democratic Supporters-Turned-Opponents Would Have Been Aware Of The Provision If They Had Read The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Cornyn earlier told reporters he did not think it was possible Democrats didn’t know about the anti-abortion provision, which represents a change from current law in applying the Hyde amendment to something other than an appropriations bill. ‘The legislation that the Senate unanimously agreed to go on yesterday was filed on Jan. 13 with Democratic co-sponsors,’ Cornyn said. ‘It was out in the public domain for a month before it was marked up in Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26, and all members of the Judiciary Committee voted to support it.’ ‘That leads me to believe that … some of the suggestions being made now that there were provisions in the legislation that people didn’t know about are simply untrue. That presupposes that none of their staff briefed their senators on what was in the legislation, that nobody read a 68-page bill, and that senators would vote for a bill, much less co-sponsor it without reading it, and knowing what’s in it,’ Cornyn said. ‘None of that strikes me as plausible.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15]
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Said Senate Would Not Vote On Loretta Lynch’s Nomination To Be Attorney General Until Senate Finished Considering The Human Trafficking Bill. According to CNN, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday said he plans to hold up attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch's confirmation until the Senate passes a now-controversial human trafficking bill. ‘This will have an impact on the timing of considering a new attorney general,’ McConnell told CNN’s Dana Bash on ‘State of the Union.’ ‘I had hoped to turn to her next week, but if we can't finish the trafficking bill, she will be put off again.’” [CNN, 3/15/15]
• Congressional Quarterly: Abortion Restriction “Language Should Have Been Easy Enough To Spot,” Although “It Is Incorporated By Reference.” According to Congressional Quarterly, “The language itself should have been easy enough to see for a staffer or senator who is familiar with the reading of legislation. It applies the Hyde language directly from a recent spending bill, although it is incorporated by reference.” [Congressional Quarterly, 3/10/15]

International Family-Planning

Mexico City Policy

2019: Fischer Voted For The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Continued The Mexico City Restrictions On International Family-Planning Funding. In December 2019, Fischer voted for the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Within the total for global health programs, the agreement provides the FY 2019 level of $575 million for family planning and reproductive health programs. The measure does not take any actions with regard to the Mexico City restrictions on international family-planning funding that were reinstated by President Trump in January 2017, and it is silent on the May 2017 expansion of the policy, effectively leaving in place current restrictions.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 71-23, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 415, 12/19/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]

IVF And Fertility Treatment

Codifying Access To IVF And Fertility Treatment

2024: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Codifying Access To IVF And Fertility Treatment. In June 2024, Fischer voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on cloture. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 48 to 47. [Senate Vote 197, 6/13/24; Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24; Congressional Actions, S.4445]

• The Bill Would Have Protected Access To And Expanded Coverage Of Common Fertility Treatments. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Senate Thursday fell short of the votes needed to move forward on legislation that would protect access to and expand coverage of commonly used fertility treatments, with just two Republicans joining Democrats in support of the legislation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]
• The Push For Codifying Access To IVF Came After The Alabama Supreme Court Ruling That Recognized Frozen Embryos As Unborn Children. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Interest in protecting access to and demonstrating support for fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization, otherwise known as IVF, have skyrocketed following a February Alabama Supreme Court ruling recognizing frozen embryos as unborn children.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]
• Republicans Said That Democrats Were “Distorting Facts” And “Politicizing A Deeply Personal Issue” As There Are No Current Bans On IVF. According to Congressional Quarterly, “But Republicans accused Democrats of distorting facts and politicizing a deeply personal issue for political gain. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., argued that no states currently ban IVF, and said the Alabama legislature passed a law protecting IVF after the court decision. Cassidy also criticized Democrats for not getting a Congressional Budget Office score for the bill and not going through the committee process.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]
• The Bill Protected The Right Of Health Professionals To Provide IVF And Patients To Receive IVF, Required Employer-Sponsored Insurance Plans To Cover Fertility Treatments, And Expanded Covered Fertility Plans For Service Members And Veterans. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The package includes language from two bills from Duckworth, who has long spoken about her personal experience using IVF. One (S 3612) would establish a statutory right for health practitioners to provide IVF, patients to seek these services and for insurance plans to cover these treatments without interference. The second (S 1262) would require health plans and insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit program to cover fertility treatments. The package also included language from a bill (S 2386) sponsored by Booker that would require employer-sponsored plans to cover fertility treatments. Finally, it included language from Murray’s bill (S 2801) that would expand fertility treatments covered through the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, including cryopreservation ahead of deployment and IVF.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]
• Republicans Called For An Alternate Bill That Would Require States Receiving Medicaid Funding To Permit IVF. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Senate Republicans have pushed for an alternative IVF bill (S 4368) from Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala. and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that would require states that receive federal Medicaid funds to not prohibit IVF. The pair introduced the bill in May.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]
• Senator Rick Scott Did Not Co-Sponsor Either Bill Despite A Seven-Figure Ad Buy Stating His Commitment To Protecting IVF. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., announced a seven-figure ad buy in early June stating his commitment to protecting IVF access. Scott is not a co-sponsor of either the GOP or the Democrat-led bill.” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/13/24]

Parental Notification And Consent

Require Parental Notification For Minors Seeking Abortions

2013: Fischer Effectively Voted To Support Passing Sen. Rubio’s Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). In March 2013, Fischer effectively voted for a “sense of the Senate” amendment regarding the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) and calling for that bill’s passage. According to The Hill, “The Senate on Friday evening rejected a Republican amendment to the 2014 budget that calls for new criminal penalties for abortions performed on minors outside their home state. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the budget that encourages passage of his Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.” The vote was on a motion to waive a point of order raised against the amendment. According to The Hill, “Boxer raised a point of order against Rubio’s amendment, saying it was non-germane. Rubio asked for a waiver from Senate budget rules.” The Senate rejected the motion to waive the point of order by a vote of 48 to 51, killing the amendment. [Senate Vote 64, 3/22/13; The Hill, 3/22/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 292; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 8]

• CIANA Would Prohibit Transporting A Minor Across State Lines To Seek An Abortion And Would Require 24 Hours’ Parental Notice Before An Abortion Could Be Performed On A Minor. According to The Hill, “That bill makes it a crime to transport minors across state lines to obtain an abortion, and requires doctors to give 24 hours notice to parents before performing an abortion. It calls for fines of up to a year in prison for doctors who perform abortions on minors from outside the doctors’ home state without parental notification.” [The Hill, 3/22/13]
• CIANA Supporters: Parental Notification Requirements Necessary Because “Parents Should Know What Their Children Are Being Involved In.” According to The Hill, “During debate, Rubio said that while abortion is a divisive issue, parental notification should not be. ‘[T]here’s one thing not dividing us, there’s one thing we’re united behind as a people, and that is the idea that parents should know what their children are being involved in,’ he said.” [The Hill, 3/22/13]
• CIANA Opponents: Many Teens Are Too Frightened To Tell Their Parents They Want An Abortion. According to The Hill, “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Rubio’s bill does not take into account that many minors are too scared to tell their parents about an abortion they want. ‘Under the Rubio amendment, a doctor and a grandmother would go to jail if the grandmother brought her grandchild across state lines… after she was raped,’ she said” (ellipsis in original). [The Hill, 3/22/13]
• CIANA Did Not Include Provisions To Protect The Health Of The Teenager Seeking The Abortion. According to a New York Times editorial, “In their zeal to force teenagers from troubled homes to bear children against their will, the measure’s sponsors included no exception to protect a teenager’s health. That is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent and fundamental decency. It is also in keeping with the rest of the right-wing agenda on contraception and abortion.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]
• CIANA Would Expand Reach Of Parental And Judicial Notification Laws Beyond The 32 States That Currently Have Them. According to a New York Times editorial, “Thirty-two states have laws requiring teenagers to consult their parents or get their permission before obtaining an abortion, or else seek a judge’s permission. The bill would expand the reach of those restrictions by imposing a mandatory parental notification requirement and 24-hour waiting period on women under 18 who travel outside their home state to get the procedure.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]
• Under CIANA, Grandparents, Older Siblings And Clergy Could Face Criminal And Civil Penalties For Helping A Minor Obtain An Abortion Without First Getting The Permission Of A Judge Or Informing A Parent. According to a New York Times editorial, “Anyone who helps the minor in the absence of judicial authorization without first informing her parent or legal guardian — and that includes grandparents, older siblings and clergy — would be subject to criminal and civil penalties that include up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]
• New York Times Editorial: CIANA Would Force A Doctor To Comply With Other States’ Laws In Addition To The Laws Of Their Home States. According to an editorial in The New York Times, “Under threat of criminal and civil penalties, doctors also would be forced to comply with a burdensome legal regimen involving the interaction of varying state laws and those of the provider’s home state.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]
• New York Times Editorial: CIANA “Approaches This Real-Life Problem In The Most Callous Way” By “Isolat[ing] Desperate Young Women From The Trusted Adults In Their Lives” And Making Them More Likely To “Resort To Unsafe Alternatives” To An Abortion Or Endangering Themselves Through Delay.” According to New York Times Editorial, “Everyone agrees that young women caught in the difficult circumstance of an unintended and unwanted pregnancy should be encouraged to talk to one or both parents about their decision on abortion, and most do. But some teenagers are too afraid to tell a parent. They may have reason to fear a violent reaction, or communication may have broken down for other reasons. The bill approaches this real-life problem in the most callous way. It would isolate desperate young women from the trusted adults in their lives and increase the chance they will resort to unsafe alternatives for termination of their pregnancies or delay the procedure, making it more dangerous.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]

Require Parental Consent For Minors Seeking Abortions

2011: Fischer Voted To Require Notarized Written Consent From A Parent Or Guardian Prior To The Performance Of An Abortion On A Minor. In May 2011, Fischer voted for LB 690. The bill, according to the Nebraska Legislature, “LB 690 amends parental notification requirements for an abortion to require notarized written consent from a pregnant woman less than eighteen years of age and one of her parents or a legal guardian before obtaining an abortion. LB 690 establishes a process for judicial bypass should a minor not seek parental consent.” The legislature passed the bill by a vote of 41 to 6, thus, it was sent to the Governor who signed it into law. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 690; Nebraska Legislature, 3/9/11; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 5/26/11]

• Supporters Said The Bill Would Close A Loophole That Allowed Individuals To Pose As A Parent While Opponents Argued It Would Do No Such Thing And Instead Create Privacy Concerns. According to the Omaha World-Herald, “Brasch said her bill would correct a problem with current law, under which a person could pose as a girl's parent. Opponents questioned whether the law would actually close that loophole. Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln said a notary public can verify the identity of the person signing a document but cannot verify that person's relationship to the girl. ‘This is presented as a cure-all for a problem that doesn't exist, and it is a flawed solution,’Conrad said. She noted that representatives of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland said parents accompany most teen girls who come there for abortions. The requirement to have a parental consent statement notarized would raise privacy concerns, especially in small towns, Conrad said.” [Omaha World-News. 5/19/11]
• Fischer Effectively Voted Against An Amendment To The Bill That Would Have Extended Prenatal Coverage For Undocumented Pregnant Minors Under Medicaid After Such Coverage Was Terminated The Year Previously. In May 2011, Fischer effectively voted against Amendment 1490 to LB 690. The amendment, according to the Omaha World-Herald, “Senators rejected a proposed amendment that would have extended prenatal coverage through Medicaid to pregnant minors who are illegal immigrants. The amendment recalls to a major controversy last year that arose after state Medicaid officials ended prenatal coverage for the unborn children of illegal immigrants. Efforts to restore the coverage fell short last year in the face of public outcry about immigration. Sen. Amanda McGill of Lincoln proposed the amendment, calling it a pro-life issue that would help save babies.” [Omaha World-News. 5/19/11]

Personhood

Fischer Believed In Fetal Personhood

Fischer Called For “Restrictions Based On Science” And Equated Abortion Restrictions With Human Rights Protections

Fischer Said The United States Turned “Its Back On Protecting Babies” And Called For “Restrictions Based On Science.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “Most of the world, including almost all of Europe, has laws based on compassion and scientific fact, but our country still turns its back on protecting babies. Restrictions based on science are not only compassionate but also common sense, as recognized by the vast majority of countries around the world.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Called For The United States To “Join The Caring Nations Of The World And Protect The Most Vulnerable Among Us” By Reforming Policies “To Reflect The Incredible Scientific Progress That Allows Us To See And Understand Human Life In The Womb.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “The White House continues to ignore science, but the vast majority of Americans understand the importance of recognizing that science. We must join the caring nations of the world and protect the most vulnerable among us. We should reform our policies to reflect the incredible scientific progress that allows us to see and understand human life in the womb.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Touted Her “Common-Sense 20-Week Abortion Ban” And Claimed Abortion Restrictions Were Supported By “Both Science And Human Rights.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “To support life is to support both science and human rights so it shouldn't have to be partisan. When I served in the Nebraska Legislature, my Democrat and Republican colleagues came together to pass a common-sense 20-week abortion ban. This bill was based on studies at the time that showed unborn babies feel pain at 20 weeks.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/22/24]

Fischer Claimed That “Ultrasound And Sonogram Technology” Had “Revolutionized Our Ability To Recognize Human Life In The Womb”

Fischer Said “Science” Did Not Support The United States’ “Extreme Abortion Policies” And Alleged That “Ultrasound And Sonogram Technology” Had “Revolutionized Our Ability To Recognize Human Life In The Womb.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “Science does not support these extreme abortion policies. Ultrasound and sonogram technology have revolutionized our ability to recognize human life in the womb, and great strides in medical care means that tiny babies born prematurely have been able to survive outside the womb. Our laws must reflect this incredible progress.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 1/23/23]

Fischer Said There Was “No Question About The Humanity Of The Unborn”

Fischer Claimed That “Science” Proved “There Should Be No Question About The Humanity Of The Unborn.” According to the Daily Nebraskan, “Speakers at the event Saturday included Nebraska Lt. Gov. Mike Foley, United States Sens. Ben Sasse and Deb Fischer, United States Reps. Jeff Fortenberry and Don Bacon, Geist, Slama, Albrecht and actress and antiabortion advocate Ashley Bratcher. ‘Science has shown us that babies that are born earlier and earlier, not only do they survive, but they thrive,’ Fischer said in her speech. ‘That shows all of us that there should be no question about the humanity of the unborn.’” [Daily Nebraskan, 1/30/22]

Fischer Pointed To Advancements In Prenatal Care In Defending The “Humanity Of The Unborn”

Fischer Claimed That “Scientific Advancements” Had “Left No Doubt About The Humanity Of The Unborn.” According to a press release from Senator Deb Fishcer, “50 years ago, babies born before around 28 weeks were not expected to survive. Today, scientific advancements have allowed babies born much earlier to not only survive, but go on to live full and happy lives. These advancements have left no doubt about the humanity of the unborn. And the miracles of modern medicine are only going to continue to allow babies born earlier and earlier to survive and thrive” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 11/29/21]

Fischer Believed That Life Began “At Conception”

Fischer Supported The Supreme Court’s Decision In The Hobby Lobby Contraceptive Case And Claimed “Those Of Us Who Believe That Life Begins At Conception Have Moral Objections To Devices Or Procedures That Destroy Fertilized Embryos.” According to the Daily Journal-Messenger, “‘The issue in Hobby Lobby is not whether women can purchase birth control, it's who pays for what,’ said Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., in remarks on the Senate floor. ‘Those of us who believe that life begins at conception have moral objections to devices or procedures that destroy fertilized embryos.’” [Daily Journal-Messenger, 7/17/14]

Fischer Cited That Belief In Her Opposition To Abortion Ban Exceptions For Rape And Incest

Fischer “Made It Clear That She No Longer Supported” Exceptions To Abortion Bans For Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to the Star-Herald, “Fischer said she has always opposed abortion, but she acknowledges her views have changed over the years. When she first ran for the Nebraska Legislature in 2004, Fischer said she believed exceptions should be made for rape and incest. However, in 2012, when she filled out the Nebraska Right to Life questionnaire, Fischer made it clear that she no longer supported those exceptions. In staking out that position, Fischer finds herself at odds with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who backs the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. ‘Over the years, I personally reflected on my position on the life issue and reaffirmed my commitment to protect life,’ said Fischer, who noted in a written statement that she believes life begins at conception.” [Star-Herald, 11/3/12]

Planned Parenthood

Funding

2018: Fischer Was Absent During A Vote On Defunding Planned Parenthood. In August 2018, Fischer voted missed a vote on an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “prohibit[ed] federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2019 Labor, HHS, Education and Defense appropriations bill. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 48. [Senate Vote 191, 8/23/18; Congressional Quarterly, 8/23/18; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3967; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 3695; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6157]

2017: Fischer Voted For The So Called “Skinny Repeal” Version Of Trumpcare, Which Defunded Planned Parenthood For One Year. In July 2017, Fischer voted for the Health Care Freedom Act, also known as “skinny repeal.” According to Vox, “The Health Care Freedom Act is the Senate Republicans’ last-ditch attempt to repeal Obamacare. Released around 10 o’clock Thursday night, it is expected to come to a vote early Friday morning. […] This HCFA would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that all Americans carry coverage. It would nix the requirement that large employers provide coverage to all workers, too. The bill includes a three-year repeal of the medical device tax and a one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood.” The vote was on the amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 49 to 51. [Senate Vote 179, 7/28/17; Vox, 7/27/17; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 667; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]

• Vox: “‘Skinny” Repeal Isn’t Skinny At All.” According to Vox, “‘Skinny’ repeal isn’t skinny at all. […] Here’s why: Skinny repeal isn’t really that skinny at all. Rolling back the individual mandate would cause an estimated 15 million to 16 million Americans to lose coverage, according to Congressional Budget Office analyses of that policy. The nonpartisan office expects that premiums would rise 20 percent in the individual market.” [Vox, 7/27/17]

2017: Fischer Voted For A “Repeal And Delay” Version Of Trumpcare That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of The Affordable Care Act, Such As Sunsetting The Medicaid Expansion, Repealing The Individual Mandate And Defunded Planned Parenthood. In July 2017, Fischer voted for the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act of 2017. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have “sunset Medicaid expansion and certain taxes created under the 2010 health care overhaul, repeal[ed] the individual and employer mandates, would [have] exclude[d] health plans that cover abortion from certain tax credits and would [have] ban[ned] federal funding for abortion providers that receive at least $1 million in federal funding annually.” The underlying legislation was the reconciliation vehicle for Trumpcare. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 45 to 55. [Senate Vote 169, 7/26/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/25/17; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 271; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 267; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]

2017: Fischer Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Effectively Withheld Title X Funds To States That Restrict Title X Funds To Planned Parenthood. In March 2017, Fischer voted for disapproving the HHS rule related to Title X funding compliance via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) on Dec. 19, 2016, that modifies eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services to specify that states and other entities awarding funds cannot prohibit a health care provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services (which effectively threatens to withhold Title X money from states that restrict participation by Planned Parenthood). The measure provides that the rule (formally titled Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients) would have no force or effect.” The vote was on passage. The Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Pence breaking the tie in favor of the bill. The legislation later became law. [Senate Vote 101, 3/30/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 43]

• HHS Rule Required That States Can Only Deny Funding For A Group Based On Its Ability To Provide Title X Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, “On Dec. 19, 2016, HHS finalized a rule modifying eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services, which specified that no state or other recipient distributing funds can prohibit an entity from participating and receiving funds for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services. If states or other entities are found to not be in compliance, HHS could discontinue its funding, subject to administrative appeals and a recoupment and re-awarding of funds. The rule effectively threatens to withhold Title X funds from states that have restrictions against participation by Planned Parenthood. The final rule became effective on Jan. 18, 2017.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Some States Have Attempted To Defund A Portion Of Planned Parenthood Funding By Denying Funds Through Title X. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Within the past few years, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain providers under the Title X program — most prominently, Planned Parenthood. HHS officials in the Obama administration argued that these actions were motivated by politics and not the provider's ability to provide Title X services, noting that the restrictions caused limitations in the geographic distribution of services. Some states have implemented a tiered approach to distribute Title X funds that gives preference to comprehensive primary care providers or community health centers, while others have explicitly prohibited specific providers from being eligible to receive Title X funds. Litigation concerning these restrictions has led to inconsistency across states in how Title X funds are distributed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Family Planning Is The Only Federal Grant Program Dedicated To Family Planning; Program Helps About 4 Million People Annually, Including Through Pregnancy Testing And STD Screening. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Title X Family Planning Program within the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) was enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act and remains the only federal program focused solely on providing family planning services. An estimated 4 million individuals each year receive services through thousands of Title X-funded health centers across the country, including contraceptive services, pregnancy testing and counseling, preconception health services, screening for sexually transmitted diseases and certain cancer screenings.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Funds Cannot Be Used To Fund Abortion, But Organizations That Provide Abortion Services Can Receive Funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Current law bars the use of Title X funds for abortion, but it allows states that receive grants to award funds to nonprofits and other entities to serve as providers for the covered family planning services. In some states, Title X service providers include members of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., a network of clinics that provide contraception and preventive health care for women but which is also the largest provider of abortion services in the nation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Planned Parenthood Receives About $60 Million Annually From Title X Out Of $450 Million Annually From The Federal Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, “For years, abortion opponents have been trying to eliminate or restrict federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The organization receives roughly $450 million in federal funds each year, with $390 million coming from Medicaid reimbursements and $60 million coming from Title X.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]

2017: Fischer Effectively Voted To Disapprove A Rule That Would Have Effectively Withheld Title X Funds To States That Restrict Title X Funds To Planned Parenthood. In March 2017, Fischer effectively voted for disapproving the HHS rule related to Title X funding compliance via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) on Dec. 19, 2016, that modifies eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services to specify that states and other entities awarding funds cannot prohibit a health care provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services (which effectively threatens to withhold Title X money from states that restrict participation by Planned Parenthood). The measure provides that the rule (formally titled Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients) would have no force or effect.” The vote was on a motion to proceed. The Senate adopted the motion by a vote of 50 to 50 with Vice President Pence breaking the tie in favor of the motion. The Senate later passed the resolution. The legislation later became law. [Senate Vote 100, 3/30/17; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 43]

• HHS Rule Required That States Can Only Deny Funding For A Group Based On Its Ability To Provide Title X Services. According to Congressional Quarterly, “On Dec. 19, 2016, HHS finalized a rule modifying eligibility requirements for Title X grants for family planning services, which specified that no state or other recipient distributing funds can prohibit an entity from participating and receiving funds for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services. If states or other entities are found to not be in compliance, HHS could discontinue its funding, subject to administrative appeals and a recoupment and re-awarding of funds. The rule effectively threatens to withhold Title X funds from states that have restrictions against participation by Planned Parenthood. The final rule became effective on Jan. 18, 2017.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Some States Have Attempted To Defund A Portion Of Planned Parenthood Funding By Denying Funds Through Title X. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Within the past few years, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain providers under the Title X program — most prominently, Planned Parenthood. HHS officials in the Obama administration argued that these actions were motivated by politics and not the provider's ability to provide Title X services, noting that the restrictions caused limitations in the geographic distribution of services. Some states have implemented a tiered approach to distribute Title X funds that gives preference to comprehensive primary care providers or community health centers, while others have explicitly prohibited specific providers from being eligible to receive Title X funds. Litigation concerning these restrictions has led to inconsistency across states in how Title X funds are distributed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Family Planning Is The Only Federal Grant Program Dedicated To Family Planning; Program Helps About 4 Million People Annually, Including Through Pregnancy Testing And STD Screening. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Title X Family Planning Program within the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) was enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act and remains the only federal program focused solely on providing family planning services. An estimated 4 million individuals each year receive services through thousands of Title X-funded health centers across the country, including contraceptive services, pregnancy testing and counseling, preconception health services, screening for sexually transmitted diseases and certain cancer screenings.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Title X Funds Cannot Be Used To Fund Abortion, But Organizations That Provide Abortion Services Can Receive Funding. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Current law bars the use of Title X funds for abortion, but it allows states that receive grants to award funds to nonprofits and other entities to serve as providers for the covered family planning services. In some states, Title X service providers include members of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., a network of clinics that provide contraception and preventive health care for women but which is also the largest provider of abortion services in the nation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]
• Planned Parenthood Receives About $60 Million Annually From Title X Out Of $450 Million Annually From The Federal Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, “For years, abortion opponents have been trying to eliminate or restrict federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The organization receives roughly $450 million in federal funds each year, with $390 million coming from Medicaid reimbursements and $60 million coming from Title X.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/17]

2015: Fischer Voted For A Bill That Defunded Planned Parenthood Less Than One Week After The Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting. In December 2015, Fischer voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “scrap[ed] in 2018 the law's Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges.” Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance.” The vote was on passage of a reconciliation bill. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 52 to 47. The bill was later passed by the full Congress, which the president then vetoed. The House was not able to override the veto. [Senate Vote 329, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Attacked. According to the New York Times, “A gun battle erupted inside a Planned Parenthood center here on Friday when a man armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire and began shooting at officers as they rushed to the scene. The authorities reported that three people were killed, a police officer and two civilians, and nine were wounded before the suspect finally surrendered more than five hours after the first shots were fired. A police official in Colorado Springs identified the man in custody as Robert Lewis Dear.” [New York Times, 11/27/15]
• Prior To The Vote, Planned Parenthood Had Come Under Scrutiny Over A Series Of Videos That Appears To Show Planned Parenthood Discussing The Price Of Selling Fetal Tissue For Medical Research. According to The Hill, “Republicans fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the legislation, which was fast-tracked to the floor after the release of undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue from abortion. […] The Planned Parenthood debate was stirred by a series of undercover videos that show officials with the group discussing the price of fetal tissue for medical research. While Planned Parenthood notes the officials are discussing compensation for the sales rather than profit, the videos have put the group on the defensive and prompted it to hire a crisis communications firm. [The Hill, 8/3/15]

2015: Fischer Effectively Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Fischer effectively voted for defunding Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section of the measure that would block for one year federal funding that is considered direct spending to Planned Parenthood.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline required a 3/5’s majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48 to 52. [Senate Vote 314, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2885; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

2015: Fischer Effectively Voted To Shut Down The Federal Government Via A 10-Week Continuing Resolution That Defunded Planned Parenthood. In September 2015, Fischer effectively voted for a 10-week continuing resolution that defunded Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the vote was on a  “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Cochran, R-Miss., substitute amendment no. 2669 that would provide continuing appropriations for government operations through Dec. 11, 2015, at an annual rate of about $1.017 trillion. It also would prohibit for one year federal funding for Planned Parenthood or its affiliates unless they certify that they will not perform, or fund other entities that perform, abortions during that period. The substitute amendment would redirect $235 million to community health centers.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 47 to 52. [Senate Vote 270, 9/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 719; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2669; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 61]

2015: Fischer Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In May 2015, Fischer voted for barring all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. According to CNN, “The fight over funding for Planned Parenthood shifts to a must-pass government funding measure this fall after a procedural vote in the Senate on legislation that would have barred all federal funds for the group failed on Monday.”  The vote was on cloture the Motion to Proceed; the motion was rejected by a vote of 53 to 46; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to proceed. [Senate Vote 262, 8/3/15; CNN, 8/4/15; Congressional Actions, S. 1881]

• Supporters Of The Legislation Claimed That The Bill Would Protect Women’s Access To Health By Redistributing Funds, Including To Community Health Centers. According to The Hill, “McConnell and other supporters of the defunding bill said it would protect women’s access to medical services because the roughly $500 million in federal funding would be redistributed to other organizations, such as community health centers. ‘Instead of subsidizing a political group, this bill would ensure funds continue to flow to community health centers and hospitals that provide more comprehensive health services — and have many more facilities nationwide,’ McConnell said Monday on the Senate floor.” [The Hill, 8/3/15]
• Opponents Of The Legislation Claim That Community Health Centers Would Not Be Able To Fill The Gap If Planned Parenthood Was Defunded. According to The Hill, “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democrats portrayed the legislation as an attack on women’s health and said community health centers would not be able to fill the gaps. ‘It’s our responsibility in the Senate to ensure that American women have access to care,’ Reid said. ‘It’s our obligation to protect our wives our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters. Protect them from the absurd policies of a Republican Party that has lost its moral compass.’” [The Hill, 8/3/15]
• Prior To The Vote, Planned Parenthood Had Come Under Scrutiny Over A Series Of Videos That Appears To Show Planned Parenthood Discussing The Price Selling Of Fetal Tissue For Medical Research. According to The Hill, “Republicans fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the legislation, which was fast-tracked to the floor after the release of undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue from abortion. […] The Planned Parenthood debate was stirred by a series of undercover videos that show officials with the group discussing the price of fetal tissue for medical research. While Planned Parenthood notes the officials are discussing compensation for the sales rather than profit, the videos have put the group on the defensive and prompted it to hire a crisis communications firm. [The Hill, 8/3/15]
• Planned Parenthood: “The Vote (Monday Was) About Denying Women Access To Birth Control, Cancer Screenings, Testing And Treatment For Many Women Where Planned Parenthood Is Their Only Doctor.” According to The Nation, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards “points out that what is really at stake in the defunding debate is access to care for millions of American women who rely on the services they receive from Planned Parenthood clinics. ‘The vote (Monday was) about denying women access to birth control, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for many women where Planned Parenthood is their only doctor,’ she said.” [The Nation, 8/3/15]
• Defunding Planned Parenthood Could Lead To A Government Shutdown; White House Threatened Veto. According to The Hill, “Some Republicans already have their sights on the government funding debate in September, raising the prospect of a government shutdown if the sides cannot agree on whether to fund the group or not. The White House has already vowed that President Obama would veto any spending that strips funding from Planned Parenthood. But 18 House conservatives wrote a letter to Republican leaders saying they will not vote for any spending bill that includes Planned Parenthood funding, and that number could grow during the August recess.” [The Hill, 8/3/15]
• In 2011, House Republicans Defunded Planned Parenthood And Almost Shut Down The Government. According to CNN, “In 2011, House Republicans passed a spending bill that stripped money for Planned Parenthood, and the fight over the issue came close to causing a government shutdown. Right before the deadline, House Speaker John Boehner negotiated a compromise that didn't include a defunding provision.” [CNN, 8/4/15]

2015: Fischer Was “Steadfastly Committed To Eliminating All Funding” For Planned Parenthood. According to a press release from Senator Deb Fischer, “Last week, I voted in favor of a bill that would have eliminated discretionary spending for Planned Parenthood. I remain steadfastly committed to eliminating all funding for this scandal-plagued organization. Even with a government shutdown, mandatory spending or Planned Parenthood spending associated with Medicaid would continue.” [Press Release – Senator Deb Fischer, 9/28/15]

Security At Women’s Health Clinics

2015: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Stripping A Bill Of A Provision Defunding Planned Parenthood While Also Establishing A Fund To Provide Payments To Women’s Health Clinics For Security. In December 2015, Fischer effectively voted against stripping a bill of a provision defunding Planned Parenthood while also establishing a fund to provide payments to women’s health clinics for security. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section that would block for one year federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It also would [have] establish[ed] a fund to make payments to women's health clinics to provide services and to ensure safety of such clinics.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to table. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 54 to 46. [Senate Vote 311, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2876; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 2874; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]

• November 27, 2015: Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Attacked. According to the New York Times, “A gun battle erupted inside a Planned Parenthood center here on Friday when a man armed with an assault-style rifle opened fire and began shooting at officers as they rushed to the scene. The authorities reported that three people were killed, a police officer and two civilians, and nine were wounded before the suspect finally surrendered more than five hours after the first shots were fired. A police official in Colorado Springs identified the man in custody as Robert Lewis Dear.” [New York Times, 11/27/15]
• Prior To The Vote, Planned Parenthood Had Come Under Scrutiny Over A Series Of Videos That Appears To Show Planned Parenthood Discussing The Price Selling Of Fetal Tissue For Medical Research. According to The Hill, “Republicans fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the legislation, which was fast-tracked to the floor after the release of undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue from abortion. […] The Planned Parenthood debate was stirred by a series of undercover videos that show officials with the group discussing the price of fetal tissue for medical research. While Planned Parenthood notes the officials are discussing compensation for the sales rather than profit, the videos have put the group on the defensive and prompted it to hire a crisis communications firm. [The Hill, 8/3/15]

Zika

2016: Fischer Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, $800 Million Less Than Requested While Also Stipulating That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In September 2016, Fischer effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 46. [Senate Vote 135, 9/6/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]

• Legislation Required That No Zika Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The measure requires that the Zika funding provided be subject to restrictions on appropriations included in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations act (PL 114-113), which included a prohibition on the use of funds to pay for abortions. (Under federal law, U.S. foreign aid funding may not be used by other nations or organizations to pay for abortions. Some women’s health groups have urged the Obama administration to use its executive authority to reinterpret the prohibition so that federal funds could be used to fund the abortions of women who contracted Zika and fear giving birth to babies with microcephaly.)” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/16]
• Legislation Included $95 Million For The Social Services Block Grant Which Would Have Excluded Family Planning Services Such As The Puerto Rico Affiliate Of Planned Parenthood. According to ABC News, “The bill wouldn’t have directly provided funds for private family planning organizations, but Republican Senate aides noted that it would have contained $95 million for public health departments, hospitals and public health plan reimbursement through the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program. Republicans said funding through the SSBG would have allowed each state or territory the maximum flexibility to direct money wherever it is most needed. In the U.S., the virus is expected to have the biggest impact in Puerto Rico, and $40 million of the funding would have gone to 20 community health centers there. […] A Senate Democratic aide said the initial Senate version of the bill, which had bipartisan support, contained a more workable proposal: funding health care services through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant program, which the aide said more directly assists women and babies, the most critical populations to reach in the Zika crisis. […] According to the aide, the bill would have made access to contraceptives more difficult for women, especially in Puerto Rico, because the Senate bill would have structured its SSBG funds to exclude private health care agencies like Planned Parenthood. ‘Eligible providers could only be public health departments, hospitals and entities reimbursed by public health plans. This would make access to contraceptive and prenatal services more difficult, especially for women in Puerto Rico,’ the aide said.” [ABC News, 6/28/16]
• Democrats Claimed That Excluding Planned Parenthood From Funding For A Public Health Crisis Impacting Pregnant Women Was Unreasonable. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Senate Democrats blocked a spending bill that includes $1.1 billion to combat the Zika virus—saying the measure unreasonably excludes Planned Parenthood Federation of America from money for a public health crisis that impacts pregnant women. […] Democrats say that by excluding Planned Parenthood from funding and adding other provisions they oppose, Republicans could delay the funding well into the mosquito season and leave only a small window to act before Congress leaves Washington in mid-July for the political parties’ conventions and lawmakers’ August recess.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/28/16]
• President Obama Requested $1.9 Billion To Combat Zika. According to the Washington Post, “President Obama on Monday asked Congress to set aside $1.9 billion to respond to the Zika virus abroad and to prepare for it in the United States, saying the funds are necessary to halt the spread of the disease and ‘protect the health and safety of Americans.’ The White House had detailed the outlines of the request earlier this month, arguing that new resources are needed to help ramp up surveillance efforts, control the mosquitoes spreading Zika, accelerate research into new vaccines and diagnostic tests, and help countries already battling the virus.” [Washington Post, 2/22/16]

2016: Fischer Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, $800 Million Less Than Requested While Also Stipulating That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In July 2016, Fischer effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 44. [Senate Vote 134, 7/14/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]

• Legislation Required That No Zika Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The measure requires that the Zika funding provided be subject to restrictions on appropriations included in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations act (PL 114-113), which included a prohibition on the use of funds to pay for abortions. (Under federal law, U.S. foreign aid funding may not be used by other nations or organizations to pay for abortions. Some women’s health groups have urged the Obama administration to use its executive authority to reinterpret the prohibition so that federal funds could be used to fund the abortions of women who contracted Zika and fear giving birth to babies with microcephaly.)” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/16]
• Legislation Included $95 Million For The Social Services Block Grant Which Would Have Excluded Family Planning Services Such As The Puerto Rico Affiliate Of Planned Parenthood. According to ABC News, “The bill wouldn’t have directly provided funds for private family planning organizations, but Republican Senate aides noted that it would have contained $95 million for public health departments, hospitals and public health plan reimbursement through the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program. Republicans said funding through the SSBG would have allowed each state or territory the maximum flexibility to direct money wherever it is most needed. In the U.S., the virus is expected to have the biggest impact in Puerto Rico, and $40 million of the funding would have gone to 20 community health centers there. […] A Senate Democratic aide said the initial Senate version of the bill, which had bipartisan support, contained a more workable proposal: funding health care services through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant program, which the aide said more directly assists women and babies, the most critical populations to reach in the Zika crisis. […] According to the aide, the bill would have made access to contraceptives more difficult for women, especially in Puerto Rico, because the Senate bill would have structured its SSBG funds to exclude private health care agencies like Planned Parenthood. ‘Eligible providers could only be public health departments, hospitals and entities reimbursed by public health plans. This would make access to contraceptive and prenatal services more difficult, especially for women in Puerto Rico,’ the aide said.” [ABC News, 6/28/16]
• Democrats Claimed That Excluding Planned Parenthood From Funding For A Public Health Crisis Impacting Pregnant Women Was Unreasonable. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Senate Democrats blocked a spending bill that includes $1.1 billion to combat the Zika virus—saying the measure unreasonably excludes Planned Parenthood Federation of America from money for a public health crisis that impacts pregnant women. […] Democrats say that by excluding Planned Parenthood from funding and adding other provisions they oppose, Republicans could delay the funding well into the mosquito season and leave only a small window to act before Congress leaves Washington in mid-July for the political parties’ conventions and lawmakers’ August recess.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/28/16]
• President Obama Requested $1.9 Billion To Combat Zika. According to the Washington Post, “President Obama on Monday asked Congress to set aside $1.9 billion to respond to the Zika virus abroad and to prepare for it in the United States, saying the funds are necessary to halt the spread of the disease and ‘protect the health and safety of Americans.’ The White House had detailed the outlines of the request earlier this month, arguing that new resources are needed to help ramp up surveillance efforts, control the mosquitoes spreading Zika, accelerate research into new vaccines and diagnostic tests, and help countries already battling the virus.” [Washington Post, 2/22/16]

2016: Fischer Effectively Voted For An FY 2017 Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill Which Also Provided $1.1 Billion In Zika Funding, $800 Million Less Than Requested While Also Stipulating That No Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. In June 2016, Fischer effectively voted for an FY 2017 military construction and veterans affairs conference report which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] $82.5 billion in fiscal 2017 appropriations for the Veterans Affairs Department, military construction and military housing and would provide $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika virus with about $750 million in offsets.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 52 to 48. [Senate Vote 112, 6/28/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]

• Legislation Required That No Zika Funding Could Be Used To Pay For Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The measure requires that the Zika funding provided be subject to restrictions on appropriations included in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations act (PL 114-113), which included a prohibition on the use of funds to pay for abortions. (Under federal law, U.S. foreign aid funding may not be used by other nations or organizations to pay for abortions. Some women’s health groups have urged the Obama administration to use its executive authority to reinterpret the prohibition so that federal funds could be used to fund the abortions of women who contracted Zika and fear giving birth to babies with microcephaly.)” [Congressional Quarterly, 6/23/16]
• Legislation Included $95 Million For The Social Services Block Grant Which Would Have Excluded Family Planning Services Such As The Puerto Rico Affiliate Of Planned Parenthood. According to ABC News, “The bill wouldn’t have directly provided funds for private family planning organizations, but Republican Senate aides noted that it would have contained $95 million for public health departments, hospitals and public health plan reimbursement through the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program. Republicans said funding through the SSBG would have allowed each state or territory the maximum flexibility to direct money wherever it is most needed. In the U.S., the virus is expected to have the biggest impact in Puerto Rico, and $40 million of the funding would have gone to 20 community health centers there. […] A Senate Democratic aide said the initial Senate version of the bill, which had bipartisan support, contained a more workable proposal: funding health care services through the Department of Health and Human Services’ Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant program, which the aide said more directly assists women and babies, the most critical populations to reach in the Zika crisis. […] According to the aide, the bill would have made access to contraceptives more difficult for women, especially in Puerto Rico, because the Senate bill would have structured its SSBG funds to exclude private health care agencies like Planned Parenthood. ‘Eligible providers could only be public health departments, hospitals and entities reimbursed by public health plans. This would make access to contraceptive and prenatal services more difficult, especially for women in Puerto Rico,’ the aide said.” [ABC News, 6/28/16]
• Democrats Claimed That Excluding Planned Parenthood From Funding For A Public Health Crisis Impacting Pregnant Women Was Unreasonable. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Senate Democrats blocked a spending bill that includes $1.1 billion to combat the Zika virus—saying the measure unreasonably excludes Planned Parenthood Federation of America from money for a public health crisis that impacts pregnant women. […] Democrats say that by excluding Planned Parenthood from funding and adding other provisions they oppose, Republicans could delay the funding well into the mosquito season and leave only a small window to act before Congress leaves Washington in mid-July for the political parties’ conventions and lawmakers’ August recess.” [Wall Street Journal, 6/28/16]
• President Obama Requested $1.9 Billion To Combat Zika. According to the Washington Post, “President Obama on Monday asked Congress to set aside $1.9 billion to respond to the Zika virus abroad and to prepare for it in the United States, saying the funds are necessary to halt the spread of the disease and ‘protect the health and safety of Americans.’ The White House had detailed the outlines of the request earlier this month, arguing that new resources are needed to help ramp up surveillance efforts, control the mosquitoes spreading Zika, accelerate research into new vaccines and diagnostic tests, and help countries already battling the virus.” [Washington Post, 2/22/16]

Prenatal Care

Undocumented Immigrants

2011: Fischer Effectively Voted Against Extending Prenatal Coverage For Undocumented Pregnant Minors Under Medicaid After Such Coverage Was Terminated The Year Previously. In May 2011, Fischer effectively voted against Amendment 1490 to LB 690. The amendment, according to the Omaha World-Herald, “Senators rejected a proposed amendment that would have extended prenatal coverage through Medicaid to pregnant minors who are illegal immigrants. The amendment recalls to a major controversy last year that arose after state Medicaid officials ended prenatal coverage for the unborn children of illegal immigrants. Efforts to restore the coverage fell short last year in the face of public outcry about immigration. Sen. Amanda McGill of Lincoln proposed the amendment, calling it a pro-life issue that would help save babies.” The vote was on the motion to overrule the Chair. The motion failed by a vote of 16 to 28. [Nebraska Legislature, LB 690; Omaha World-News, 5/19/11; Nebraska Journal Of The Legislature, 5/18/11] 

United Nations

Prohibiting Funds To The United Nations As Long As Member Nations Required Involuntary Abortions

2013: Fischer Voted To Support Prohibiting Funds To The United Nations As Long As Any Member Nation Required Involuntary Abortions. In March 2013, Fischer voted for an amendment that, according to CQ, “would create a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would provide taxpayer funds to the United Nations when any member nation compels its residents to have involuntary abortions.” If it had passed, it would have effectively required that 60 senators vote. The amendment was to the Senate budget resolution for fiscal year 2013; the Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 38 to 61. [Senate Vote 86, 3/23/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/13; Congressional Actions, S. Amdt. 702; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 8]

• Roll Call: Amendment’s Apparent Purpose Was To Put Senators In “Politically Difficult Position” Of Protecting Funding For United Nations With Potential Claim That They Voted To Protect China’s Forced Abortion Policy. According to Roll Call, “The amendment had zero chance of passing — it was defeated 38-61 — but like many of the other amendments considered well after midnight, it appeared to be aimed at putting senators in a politically difficult position: either they go on record whacking the United Nations or they face the potential for attack ads saying they voted to protect forced abortions in China.” [Roll Call, 3/23/13]
• Opponents Argued That They Opposed Forced Abortions, But That Amendment Would Punish Other Countries For China’s Policy, Including Defunding Peacekeeping Operations, Such As Those In The Golan Heights And Darfur. According to Roll Call, “Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., ripped into Cruz’s argument on the floor. ‘No one — no one in this body supports forced abortions. No one,’ he said. ‘However, the United Nations has no authority to control the acts of any individual nation. Instead of punishing the country that maybe — that is carrying out the bad policy, this amendment would go after an entity that has no control over the policy and all the while negatively impacting our national interest.’ Menendez said the amendment would take away all funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations in the Golan Heights, Darfur, Congo, funding for refugees and funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency.” [Roll Call, 3/23/13]
• Sen. Mary Landrieu Angrily Confronted Cruz Over The Amendment On The Senate Floor, Suggested To Him That “A More Direct And A More Effective Route Might Be For Texas To Stop All Exports To China.” According to Roll Call, “Ted Cruz’s effort to tie United Nations funding to China’s abortion policy provoked a sharp, private rebuke from Mary L. Landrieu on the Senate floor Saturday morning. Shortly before 4 a.m., the Louisiana Democrat strode from her desk on the Democratic side of the chamber all the way to the Texas Republican’s desk on the far side to give him a piece of her mind after Cruz insisted on a roll call vote on his amendment to the Senate budget resolution (S Con Res 8). Cruz wanted to create a new point of order against funding the United Nations as long as any of its member nations have a policy of involuntary abortions. ‘I suggested to him that a more direct and a more effective route might be for Texas to stop all exports to China or to stop any financial exchanges between Texas and China,’ Landrieu told CQ Roll Call after she voted on the budget shortly before 5 a.m. ‘That would have had a much more direct effect on what he was trying to do than take money from the U.N. ... I thought he might like the idea. He should try it next time,’ Landrieu said. After a cross-looking Landrieu left to return to her desk, a bemused Cruz smirked and chatted with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who voted for the amendment” (ellipsis in original). [Roll Call, 3/23/13]