Abortion

Abortion

General

Tiffany Was Anti-Abortion

Tiffany Said He Would Advocate Against Abortion. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “‘I don't plan to go to Washington looking for a fight, but I can guarantee I will never back down from one,’ Tiffany said in a statement. ‘Now more than ever we need to stand up to preserve our freedoms and our bedrock values. As we all know, it's a swamp out there and we need someone who won't waver when it comes to doing what is right for Wisconsin.’ Tiffany said he'll be an ‘ally’ to President Donald Trump and prioritize border security, Second Amendment rights, and advocating against abortion and limiting the size of government.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 9/11/19]

[VIDEO] Tiffany Said He Would “Do The Same In Washington DC” As He Did In Wisconsin On Abortion. “I have a deeply held belief in preserving life. And it stems from having three daughters, Karlyn, Lexie, and Kathryn. I was there with my wife Chris in the delivery room. I saw those three girls come into the world. And you never forget it. You never forget it. And that’s what I’ve done over the last few years while being in the legislature. I’ve never forgotten and I’ve voted for life. I voted to defund Planned Parenthood. I voted to end late-term abortions here in Wisconsin. I’ve done it, and I’ll do the same in Washington, DC.” [YouTube, No Better Friend Corp. 7^th District Debate, 12/17/19]

Tiffany Ran A Radio Ad Featuring Scott Walker Touting Tiffany As A Pro-Life Citizen Legislator. According to the Associated Press, “Tiffany's campaign manager, Ashley Czaja, said in a statement that Tiffany worked alongside former Republican Gov. Scott Walker to cut taxes and protect gun rights. She did not address the ad. Tiffany's campaign launched a radio ad Monday that features Walker touting Tiffany as pro-life, pro-gun ‘citizen legislator’ that Trump needs in Washington.” [Associated Press, 1/7/20]

[VIDEO] Tiffany Said Wisconsin “Did The Right Thing By Limiting” Abortion “I voted to end late term abortion abortions here in Wisconsin and that was the right vote to take. I was there at the birth of all three of my daughters. I was there in the delivery room. I saw the miracle of life enter this world. There's some that say we should be able to snuff out that life at any point during an abortion. I believe that we did the right thing by limiting that here in the state of Wisconsin. Also, I have voted to defund Planned Parenthood and I did because your tax dollars should not be used if you do not agree with an abortion happening.” [WJFW 7^th Congressional Debate, 5/1/20]

[VIDEO] Tiffany: “I Believe That There Should Be Some Restrictions On Abortion.” “People are very concerned that they're simply going to say that abortion is legal up to birth. I mean, that's what people are very concerned about. And I certainly am, too. And I believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion. I mean, I've voted in various ways. I mean, in the legislature before the Dobbs decision six years ago, I voted for the 20 week bill that came up that you can't have an abortion after 20 weeks. I would be open to other changes to that if if people deem that it should be done.” [Drydenwire, Facebook, WI, 06/08/23]

Roe v. Wade

Tiffany Called For Overturning Roe v. Wade

Tiffany Said That Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. According to the Wausau Daily Herald, “Tiffany: He noted that he had voted to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level, and said that while legislation is important in the fight for life, winning the hearts and minds of Americans with pro-life advertising is also important. He noted that late-term abortions should not be legal, calling them infanticide. Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and states should make decisions regarding the legality of abortions.” [Wausau Daily Herald, 12/14/19]

[VIDEO] Tiffany: “Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned.” “In regards to the final point that you made, the law Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It should be overturned because it’s unconstitutional. The states should be allowed to decide what they’re going to do. I may not agree with that state, but it should not have been decided at the federal level in the early 1970s.” [YouTube, No Better Friend Corp. 7^th District Debate, 12/17/19]

2021: Tiffany Urged Supreme Court To Side With Mississippi In Dobbs Case

2021: Tiffany Signed An Amicus Brief  Supporting The State Of Mississippi In Dobbs v. Jackson And Urged The Supreme Court To Uphold Mississippi’s Law. According to a press release from Senator Roger Wicker, “The Mississippi congressional delegation and the House Pro-Life Caucus today led more than 200 members of Congress in filing an amicus brief supporting the State of Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Mississippi’s law protecting life. U.S. Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), and U.S. Representatives Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.), Trent Kelly (R-Miss.), and Michael Guest (R-Miss.), along with House Pro-life Caucus Co-Chair Chris Smith (R-N.J.), filed the brief. In total, 44 Senators and 184 members of the House of Representatives signed the brief. […] In addition to the House sponsors, Representatives signing the brief include: […] Tom Tiffany (Wis.-07)” [Press Release – Senator Roger Wicker, 7/29/21]

2022: Tiffany Praised The Overturn Of Roe v. Wade

Tiffany Said Overturning Roe Was A “Historic Victory For Human Life” That “Paves The Way For Us To Protect All Life.” According to a press release from Congressman Tom Tiffany, “Today, Congressman Tom Tiffany (WI-07) issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. ‘Today’s landmark ruling is a historic victory for human rights,’ said Congressman Tiffany. ’This decision paves the way for us to protect all life.’” [Press Release – Congressman Tom Tiffany, 6/24/22]

Tiffany Praised The Supreme Court For Overturning Roe And Called For “Supporting Pregnancy Centers.” According to WAOW, “Congressman Tom Tiffany praised the Supreme Court for their decision on Roe v. Wade and said it was the right choice to make. Tiffany said when the original Dobbs decision was made five decades ago, it was just up to the justices. Now, the decision is in the hands of each state. On Thursday, Tiffany said he was pleased with the recent ruling because sending the case back to the states allows the people to have a say with their vote. ‘One of the greatest things we should be doing is supporting pregnancy centers. There's a whole life center we have in Northcentral Wisconsin. I think that's a much better approach to be taking. Let's value all life including unborn life,’ Tiffany said.” [WAOW, 6/30/22]

[VIDEO] Tiffany Praised The Supreme Court For Overturning Roe Which He Said Was Decided “Illegitimately.” “Now, I think one thing that people forget and I urge people to read the decision. It was written by Justice Alito. What he did was, he said that we’re overturning a case, overturning Roe v. Wade where nine judges made that decision, not your elected representatives as should have because it is not contained in the Constitution that you have a right to an abortion. He said it was decided illegitimately by those nine judges. We need to return it to the people and their representatives. And now that’s what happened. Now people are going to be able to decide what they want to do. And while I don’t agree like in New York where they said yes we’re going to allow unlimited abortions up to nine months of pregnancy, I don’t agree with that at all. But that’s what the people of New York chose to do.” [YouTube, Western Wisconsin Journal, 9/6/22]

Tiffany Said Overturning Roe Was Correct And Better For The Issue To Be In The States. According to the Inter County Leader, “Many main concerns shared by attendees focused on health care. Issues included shortages of health care personnel, a lack of access to specialists and an increasing trend of rural hospitals being at risk of closing. Tiffany responded that there would likely be further problems as there are moves toward federally funded care, and that he believed in most cases the open market provides the best opportunity for quality of care. He also said that rules and requirements tied to COVID protocols also seem to have contributed to a loss in providers, as this was also tied to the ability to receive federal funding. Another community member mentioned she was concerned about the abolition of Roe v. Wade. Tiffany replied that he felt it was better for the issue to be put back into the hands of the state Legislature for elected officials to decide as a better representation of the people, since he believes Roe v. Wade was initially put in place without Congress enacting it. Another constituent mentioned issues with veterans benefits and prescription policy changes limiting access to non-mail-order medicines. Tiffany requested a copy of a letter received and stated he would personally look into the matter.” [Inter County Leader, 2/1/23]

Endorsements

Tiffany Was Repeatedly Endorsed By Wisconsin Right TO Life

2010: Wisconsin Right To Life Endorsed Tiffany For State Assembly. According to Tom Tiffany for State Assembly, “Today I received notification of the endorsement of Wisconsin Right to Life.  In their letter of endorsement, Wisconsin Right to Life states, ‘We appreciate your strong support for legislative initiatives that would enhance the sanctity of human life and your opposition to measures that would demean human life’.” [Tom Tiffany For State Assembly via WayBack Machine, 7/9/10]

• Wisconsin Right To Life Endorsed Tiffany For State Assembly And Said He “Fully Supports Right-To-Life Initiatives And Would Oppose All Measures That Would Demean The Sanctity Of Human Life.” According to Wisconsin Right To Life, “Endorsed: Tom Tiffany (R) Tom Tiffany fully supports right-to-life initiatives and would oppose all measures that would demean the sanctity of human life.” [Wisconsin Right To Life via WayBack Machine, 2010]

2020: Wisconsin Right To Life Endorsed Tiffany For Congress, And Qualified Support For His Opponent Because His Opponent Supported Rape And Incest Exceptions. According to the Associated Press, “Tiffany received an A+ rating and full endorsement from the NRA, while Church received the highest rating the gun rights group gives to a candidate without a voting record. Wisconsin Right to Life, which opposes abortion rights, endorsed both candidates, though it qualified its support for Church because he supports exceptions for abortions involving rape and incest.” [Associated Press, 2/9/20]

Medication Abortions

2012: Tiffany Voted For Legislation That Required Three Trips To The Same Doctor For Nonsurgical Abortions And That Banned Consulation Over The INternet For Medication Abortions

2012: Tiffany Voted For Legislation That Required Doctors To Determine Through A Private Consultation Whether A Woman Is Being Coerced Into Having An Abortion, Required Three Trips To The Same Doctor For Women Seeking Nonsurgical Abortions, And Banned The Use Of Consultation Over The Internet To Provide Medication Abortions. On March 15, 2012, Tiffany voted for Senate Bill 306, which would, according to the Wisconsin State Journal, require “doctors to determine through a private consultation whether a woman is being coerced into having an abortion,” require “three trips to the same doctor for women seeking nonsurgical abortions,” and ban “the use of consultation over the Internet to provide medication abortions.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 17-15 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 60-33 vote. In April 2012, Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin State Legislature, Senate Bill 306; 2011 Assembly Vote 741, 3/15/12; 2011 Wisconsin Act 217; Wisconsin State Journal, 4/21/12]

• “Coercive And Web Cam Abortion Protection Act” Required Doctors To Determine Through A Private Consultation Whether A Woman Is Being Coerced Into Having An Abortion, Required Three Trips To The Same Doctor For Women Seeking Nonsurgical Abortions, And Banned The Use Of Consultation Over The Internet To Provide Medication Abortions. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Act 217, also known as the Coercive and Web Cam Abortion Protection Act, requires doctors to determine through a private consultation whether a woman is being coerced into having an abortion. State law already requires written consent before an abortion is performed. The law now requires three trips to the same doctor for women seeking nonsurgical abortions. And it bans the use of consultation over the Internet to provide medication abortions, a practice that is used elsewhere but not in Wisconsin. Doctors alleged to have violated the law can be charged with a felony.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/21/12]
• Legislation Required That Women Undergoing Nonsurgical Abortions Visit The Same Doctor Three Times And That Doctors Ensure Through Specific Steps That The Woman Is Undergoing The Procedure Voluntarily And Without Coercion. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “The new law requires, among other things, that women undergoing nonsurgical abortions visit the same doctor three times and that doctors ensure through specific steps that the woman is undergoing the procedure voluntarily and without coercion. The state already requires that women provide written consent before having an abortion.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/20/12]
• Legislation Required That If A Doctor Suspects That A Woman Is Being Coerced, She Must Be Provided With A Telephone And Information About Domestic-Abuse Services. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “The law also requires that if a doctor suspects that a woman is being coerced, she must be provided with a telephone and information about domestic-abuse services.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/20/12]
• Legislation Banned Doctors From Meeting Via The Internet With Women Undergoing Medication-Induced Abortions. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “The law also bans doctors from meeting via the Internet with women undergoing medication-induced abortions, a technique that is used elsewhere but not in Wisconsin. ‘By ensuring women aborting do so freely and with proper access to a doctor, this bill will undoubtedly save lives,’ sponsor Sen. Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin, said in a statement released in February after the Senate narrowly passed the bill.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/20/12]
• Legislation Required Doctors To Examine Patients In Person Before Prescribing Abortion-Inducing Drugs Like Mifepristone.  According to the Capital Times, “The bill also eliminates the possibility of what are called webcam abortions from being performed in Wisconsin by requiring doctors to examine patients in person before prescribing abortion-inducing drugs like mifepristone. Backers point to physicians in Iowa and Minnesota who have been prescribing the drug after conferring with patients only via online video conferencing. The practice is not currently done in Wisconsin. ‘We consider it (mifepristone) a toxic chemical,’ says Matt Sande, the director of legislation for Pro-Life Wisconsin. ‘Its use should be highly restricted if not outright banned.’” [Capital Times, 2/22/12]
• Doctors Were Subjected To Class I Felony Charges That Carried A Maximum Penalty Of $10,000, 3.5 Years In Jail, Or Both. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “Doctors who violate the law are subject to Class I felony charges. Such crimes carry a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine, 3 1/2 years in prison or both.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/20/12]
• Legislation Barred Anyone Except The Woman And The Abortion Provider And His Or Her Staff From Being In The Room During The Discussion About Whether The Woman Voluntarily Consents To The Procedure. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, “The law also bars anyone except the woman and the abortion provider and his or her staff from being in the room during the discussion about whether the woman voluntarily consents to the procedure. Wetterneck said some patients prefer, or even require, someone else in the room to help them understand the medical information being provided.” [Wisconsin State Journal, 4/20/12]

Legislation Had The Consequences Of Limiting Access To Medication-Induced Abortions Leading More Women To Have More Invasive Surgical Abortions And Putting Some Women At Greater Risk By Increasing The Wait-Time For Appointments. According to the Marshfield News, “A new Wisconsin abortion law, Act 217, went into effect last April. It prompted the state's two leading abortion providers, Affiliated Medical Services and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, to stop providing medication abortions that month. Affiliated Medical Services resumed offering medication abortions in May, after a legal review. Planned Parenthood, which has filed a federal lawsuit against the law, is still not offering this option. Billed as a way to make abortion safer for women, the law had the consequence of limiting access to medication-induced abortions, leading more women to have more invasive surgical abortions and putting some women at greater risk by increasing the wait-time for appointments.” [Marshfield News, 1/30/13]

2019: Tiffany voted To Require Doctors To Inform Women They Could Continue Their Pregnancy After Taking The First Dose Of Mifepristone

2019: Tiffany Voted For Legislation To Require Doctors To Inform Women That They Could Continue Their Pregnancy If They Act Quickly After Taking The First Dose Of Mifepristone. On June 5, 2019, Tiffany voted fort Assembly Bill 180, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “require doctors to inform women that they could continue their pregnancy if they act quickly after taking the first dose of a two-drug regimen that causes abortion.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 62-35 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-13 vote. Governor Tony Evers vetoed the legislation and it failed to become law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 180; 2019 Senate Vote 34, 6/5/19;  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/18/19]

• Legislation Would Require Doctors To Inform Women That They Could Continue Their Pregnancy If They Act Quickly After Taking The First Dose Of A Two-Drug Regimen That Causes Abortion. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Another measure, Assembly Bill 180, would require doctors to inform women that they could continue their pregnancy if they act quickly after taking the first dose of a two-drug regimen that causes abortion. That bill would also require the state to make public the names of hospitals and clinics where abortions had been provided. The fight over the abortion legislation comes four months after Planned Parenthood sued the state over laws that bar nurses from providing abortions and limit access to medication that causes abortions.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/18/19]
• Legislation Would Have Also Required The State To Publicly Identify Every Healthcare Center That Has Provided An Abortion. According to the Badger Herald, “The bill would have also required the state to publicly identify every healthcare center that has provided an abortion. Evers, when he vetoed the bill, said the disclaimer was not necessarily true, as it is not scientifically proven and such comments interfere with the patient-physician relationship.” [Badger Herald, 9/23/21]

Insurance

2012: Tiffany Voted To Bar Insurance Exchanges From Covering Most Abortions

2012: Tiffany Voted For Legislation To Prohibit Exchanges From Covering Most Abortions. On March 13, 2012, Tiffany voted for Senate Bill 92, which would, according to the Capital Times, prohibit “any health plan offered through the exchange from covering abortions except for those performed to save the life of the woman, in the case of sexual assault or incest or to prevent long-lasting health damage because of a pre-existing medical condition.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 17-16 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 61-34 vote. In April 2012, Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin State Legislature, Senate Bill 92; 2011 Assembly Vote 660, 3/13/12; 2011 Wisconsin Act 218; Capital Times, 6/1/11]

• Legislation Prohibited Any Health Plan Offered Through The Exchange From Covering Abortions Except For Those Performed To Save The Life Of The Woman, In The Case Of Sexual Assault Or Incest Or To Prevent Long-Lasting Health Damage Because Of A Pre-Existing Medical Condition. According to the Capital Times, “The Senate Public Health, Human Services and Revenue Committee is holding a hearing Wednesday on a Senate bill co-sponsored by Sen. Rich Zipperer, R-Pewaukee, and Rep. Robin Vos, R-Racine, that prohibits any health plan offered through the exchange from covering abortions except for those performed to save the life of the woman, in the case of sexual assault or incest or to prevent long-lasting health damage because of a pre-existing medical condition. These are the same narrow exceptions that already exist in state statutes governing the public funding of abortions. The legislation, Senate Bill 92, mirrors bills cropping up around the country. According to data from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, nine states have already banned insurance coverage in their state health insurance exchange and some of these states have gone further, banning private and public insurance coverage of abortion services as well. More than 20 states in all have seen the introduction this year of similar legislation.” [Capital Times, 6/1/11]
• Legislation’s Exceptions Could Only Be Covered If Victims Have Reported Rape Or Incest To Authorities. According to International Business Times, “While a range of bills were either proposed or considered in 15 states this year, so far those bans have only been enacted in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Those exchange bans contain limited exceptions in situations where a woman's life is in immediate danger and for victims of rape or incest (although Wisconsin's law, SB 92, specifically states those victims can only be covered if they have reported those crimes to authorities, and the South Dakota legislation only includes exceptions for women facing imminent death or serious health risks.)” [International Business Times, 7/24/12]

2018: Tiffany Voted To Ban The State From Providing Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion

2018: Tiffany Voted To Ban The State From Providing Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion. On February 20, 2018, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 128, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “prevent the state from providing insurance plans that cover abortion.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 61-35 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 18-14 vote. Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 128; 2017 Senate Vote 206, 2/20/18; 2017 Wisconsin Act 191; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/20/17]

• Legislation Would Ban The State From Providing Insurance Plans That Cover Abortion And Applied To Local Governments That Got Their Insurance Through The State Group Insurance Board. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Public workers could not use their government-sponsored health insurance plans for abortions in most cases, under a bill Republicans in the Legislature are considering. Republicans are seeking to advance the measure more than three years after abandoning an earlier version of the legislation that state Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) said at the time would unleash ‘all out hell’ in the Senate. Assembly Bill 128 would prevent the state from providing insurance plans that cover abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother. The provision would also apply to local governments that get their insurance through the state Group Insurance Board.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/20/17]
• Legislation Provided An Exception For Incest And Sexual Assault, But Only If The Woman Has Reported The Crime To Law Enforcement. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The bill also provides an exception for incest and sexual assault, but only if the woman has reported the crime to law enforcement.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/3/17]

2019: Tiffany Voted To Direct The State Department Of Health Services TO Exclude Abortion Clinics From The State’s Medicaid Program 

2019: Tiffany Voted To Bar The Department Of Health Services From Certifying A Provider Under The Medical Assistance Program If They Offered Abortion Services And Would Have Allowed The Department To Decertify A Provider For Conducting Abortion Services. On June 5, 2019, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 183, which would, according to Badger Herald, “barred the Department of Health Services from certifying a provider under the Medical Assistance program if they offered abortion services and similarly would have allowed the DHS to decertify a provider for conducting abortion services.”. The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 64-32 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-13 vote. Governor Tony Evers vetoed the legislation and it failed to become law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 183; 2019 Senate Vote 36, 6/5/19; Badger Herald, 9/23/21]

• Legislation Would Bar The Department Of Health Services From Certifying A Provider Under The Medical Assistance Program If They Offered Abortion Services And Would Have Allowed The Department To Decertify A Provider For Conducting Abortion Services. According to the Badger Herald, “Another veoted bill, 2019 Assembly Bill 183, would have barred the Department of Health Services from certifying a provider under the Medical Assistance program if they offered abortion services and similarly would have allowed the DHS to decertify a provider for conducting abortion services. In doing so, the provider would not be able to bill Medicare and consequently, all of the provider’s patients would have likely been forced to pay for the services out-of-pocket.” [Badger Herald, 9/23/21]

Planned Parenthood

2011: Tiffany Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood In Wisconsin

2011: Tiffany Voted For A Budget That Included A Provision To Strip $1 Million In State And Federal Funding To Nine Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Health Centers In Small Communities. On June 16, 2011, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 40, which would, according to the Post-Crescent, eliminate “$1 million in state and federal funding to nine Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin health centers in small communities.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 60-38 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-14 vote. Governor Scott Walker signed the budget legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 40; 2011 Assembly Vote 400, 6/16/11; 2011 Wisconsin Act 32; Post-Crescent, 7/11/11]

• Budget Eliminated $1 Million In State And Federal Funding To Nine Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Health Centers In Small Communities. According to the Post-Crescent, “The recently adopted state budget eliminates $1 million in state and federal funding to nine Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin health centers in small communities, including the one in Oshkosh. No change in services has occurred thus far, but changes could come, said Amanda Harrington, a spokeswoman from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. ‘This is a challenging time for us. We are evaluating all our options,’ Harrington said. The $1 million cut represents nearly a quarter of all funding from grants - federal, state and private, according to Guide Star.org, a Web site that reports the financial information of nonprofit organizations. Part of the waiting game for Planned Parenthood is seeing what, if anything, the federal government might do to fill in the funding gap.” [Post-Crescent, 7/11/11]
• Budget Redirected Money From Planned Parenthood To County Health Departments. According to the Oshkosh Northwestern, “The new state budget redirects money that formerly went directly to Planned Parenthood to county health depart ments. It will be up to the counties to either provide family planning services or contract with some other entity to provide the services, said Sam Austin, an analyst with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Winnebago County currently does not provide family planning services and officials haven't heard they will receive additional funds to begin doing so, said Public Health Officer Doug Gieryn.” [Oshkosh Northwestern, 8/21/11]
• Cutting Funding Led To Five Planned Parenthood Health Centers Shutting Down. According to the Green Bay Press Gazette, “Planned Parenthood will close its family planning health center in Fond du Lac on Sept. 25 after 36 years of service to the community. It is the fifth Wisconsin Planned Parenthood health center to close due to state cuts in the last budget cycle, according to a Planned Parenthood news release. The others are in Beaver Dam, Shawano, Johnson Creek and Chippewa Falls. The centers provided birth control, cervical and breast cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, Well Woman Exams, pregnancy testing, and HIV testing. None of the health centers provided abortions, the release said. The centers provided 18,848 health care services to 3,104 patients each year.” [Green Bay Press Gazette, 6/19/14]

2016: Tiffany Voted To Block Title X Funding From Going To Organizations That Provide Abortion Services

2016: Tiffany Voted For Legislation To Block Title X Funding To Planned Parenthood. On January 20, 2016, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 310, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “prevent the state from passing on federal money it receives through the Title X grant program to any group that provides abortions or has an affiliate that provides abortions.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 60-35 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-14 vote. Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 310; 2015 Senate Vote 207, 1/20/16; 2015 Wisconsin Act 151; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/21/16]

• Legislation Would Prevent The State From Passing On Federal Money It Receives Through The Title X Grant Program To Any Group That Provides Abortions Or Has An Affiliate That Provides Abortions; Planned Parenthood Of Wisconsin Received About $3.5 Million In Title X Money A Year. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Again on party lines, the Senate voted 19-14 to pass Assembly Bill 310, which would prevent the state from passing on federal money it receives through the Title X grant program to any group that provides abortions or has an affiliate that provides abortions. Title X money goes toward family planning and health screening for the poor and uninsured and is not allowed to be used for abortions. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin receives about $3.5 million in Title X money a year. The Assembly approved the measure in September and it now goes to Walker, a longtime opponent of Planned Parenthood.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/21/16]

2016: Tiffany Voted To Restrict Medicaid Reimbursements To Planned Parenthood For Birth Control

2016: Tiffany Voted To Restrict Reimbursements Through Medicaid For Clinics Affiliated With Abortion Providers. On January 20, 2016, Tiffany voted for Senate Bill 238, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “put restrictions on how much clinics affiliated with abortion providers could be reimbursed for dispensing birth control.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-14 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 61-35 vote. Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Senate Bill 238; 2015 Senate Vote 187, 1/20/16; 2015 Wisconsin Act 152; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/12/16]

• Under The Legislation, Planned Parenthood Would Be Limited To Billing Taxpayers Through Medicaid For The Actual Acquisition Cost, Plus A Dispensing Fee. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics acquire drugs at discounted rates available through a Medicaid health program known as 340B. Under Senate Bill 238, Planned Parenthood would be limited to billing taxpayers through Medicaid for the actual acquisition cost, plus a dispensing fee. Opponents argued it would be thrown out in court because it would treat Planned Parenthood differently than other clinics. The bill next goes to the Assembly, which is also controlled by Republicans.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/21/16]
• Planned Parenthood Would Lose About $4 Million A Year. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The state Assembly approved bills Thursday slicing into Planned Parenthood's funding and making it easier for landlords to kick out tenants when crimes occur on their properties. With all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed, the Assembly approved the bill 61-35 and sent it to Gov. Scott Walker, a longtime opponent of Planned Parenthood. Under the bill, SB 238, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin would lose about $4million a year because it would put restrictions on how much clinics affiliated with abortion providers could be reimbursed for dispensing birth control.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/12/16]
• Legislation Offered Lower Reimbursement Rates For Clinics That Are Linked To An Abortion Provider. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The prescription drug bill, SB 238, would limit Planned Parenthood to billing taxpayers through Medicaid for the actual acquisition cost, plus a dispensing fee. Family planning clinics are able to acquire drugs at discounted rates through a Medicaid health program known as 340B. Democrats have accused Republicans of allowing their ideology to prevent some women from getting birth control, and opponents of SB 238 argued it will be thrown out in court because it treats Planned Parenthood differently than other clinics. The bill doesn't mention Planned Parenthood by name but singles the group out by offering lower reimbursement rates for clinics that are linked to an abortion provider. The bill was approved with party-line votes by the Senate in January and by the Assembly last week.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/19/16]

2020: Tiffany Vowed To Defund PLanned Parenthood On The Federal Level

Tiffany Said That He “Worked” To “Defund Planned Parenthood” On The State Level And Would Do So In Congress. According to the Leader-Telegram, “Tiffany: As a husband, father and small businessman who grew up on a small family farm with my seven brothers and sisters, I am uniquely qualified to look out for Wisconsin taxpayers and families to ensure their voices are heard at the U.S. Capitol. Actions speak louder than words. I've worked to cut $13 billion in taxes, defund Planned Parenthood and protect our 2nd Amendment rights. I've done it at the State Capitol, and I will bring the same action to Congress.” [Leader-Telegram, 2/13/20]

2020-21: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Allow States To Exclude Planned Parenthood From Receiving Medicaid Funds

2020: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Allow States To Exclude Abortion Providers From Receiving Medicaid Funds. In September 2020, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R. 8353, dubbed the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which allowed “a state to exclude from participation in the state’s Medicaid program a provider that performs an abortion, unless (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or (2) the woman suffers from a physical issue that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.8353 - Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, 9/23/20]

• Legislation Sponsors Claimed The Legislation Gave States The Authority To Exclude Planned Parenthood From Receiving Medicaid Funds. According to a press release from Congressman Michael Cloud, “Congressman Michael Cloud (TX-27) and U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today introduced the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which gives states the authority to exclude abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. Under current law, states are required to allow any qualified provider to participate in a state’s Medicaid system. A non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that Planned Parenthood received $1.2 billion in Medicaid reimbursements over a three year period, accounting for 80 percent of the abortion provider’s joint federal-state funding stream.” [Press Release – Congressman Michael Cloud, 9/23/20]

2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Allow States To Exclude Abortion Providers From Receiving Medicaid Funds. In February 2021, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.188, dubbed the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which allowed “a state to exclude from participation in the state's Medicaid program a provider that performs an abortion, unless (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or (2) the woman suffers from a physical issue that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.188 - Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, 2/2/21]

• Legislation Sponsors Claimed The Legislation Gave States The Authority To Exclude Planned Parenthood From Receiving Medicaid Funds. According to a press release from Senator James Lankford, “Senator James Lankford (R-OK) today reintroduced the bicameral Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which gives states the authority to exclude abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. Congressman Michael Cloud (TX-27) introduced the House version of the bill on January 5, 2021. Under current law, states are required to allow any qualified provider to participate in a state’s Medicaid system. A non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that Planned Parenthood received nearly 1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements over a three year period, accounting for 81 percent of the abortion provider’s joint federal-state funding stream.” [Press Release – Senator James Lankford, 1/28/21]

Ultrasounds

2013: Tiffany Voted To Require Mandatory Ultrasounds Before Abortions

2013: Tiffany Voted For Legislation Requiring Mandatory Ultrasounds Before Abortions. On June 12, 2013, Tiffany voted for Senate Bill 206, which would, according to WITI, require “women seeking an abortion to first view an ultrasound of their fetus before the procedure takes place.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 17-15 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 56-39 vote. Governor Scott walked signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Senate Bill 206; 2013 Senate Vote 100, 6/12/13; 2013 Wisconsin Act 37; WITI, 6/12/13]

• Legislation Required Women Seeking An Abortion To First View An Ultrasound Of Their Fetus Before The Procedure Takes Place. According to WITI, “The State Senate passed Senate Bill 206 on Wednesday, June 12th. The bill requires women seeking an abortion to first view an ultrasound of their fetus before the procedure takes place. It is a bill some are calling an attack on women’s rights, while others say it is an effort to inform women before they make a life-altering decision. Prior the vote, there was vigorous debate on the matter. Democrats say the state has no business interfering with a woman making a legal health decision. ‘Current law requires that the woman be told about alternatives; that the woman be given an ultrasound, told that it’s available; that the woman be told about the heart beat,’ said Democratic Sen. Kathleen Vinehout. Republicans say the bill doesn’t mean to interfere, but rather inform women who are about to make a major decision.” [WITI, 6/12/13]
• Legislation Would Require That An Abortion Provider Have The Authority To Admit Patients Into A Hospital Within 30 Miles Of Where The Abortions Are Performed. According to the Stevens Point Journal, “The fast-tracked bill, introduced last week and approved on a partisan 3-2 vote Monday in committee, also would require that an abortion provider have the authority to admit patients into a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortions are performed. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin said Monday that provision would force it to close its Appleton clinic - one of just four in the state.” [Stevens Point Journal, 6/12/13]
• Legislation Would Require The Ultrasound Technician To Display The Image Of The Fetus, Describe The Size, Location And Number Of Fetuses, And Identify Any Viewable Internal Organs Or External Features. According to the Stevens Point Journal, “The bill would require the ultrasound technician to display the image of the fetus, describe the size, location and number of fetuses, and identify any viewable internal organs or external features. The bill does not require the woman to look at the ultrasound, and it wouldn't apply in cases of rape, incest or an emergency.” [Stevens Point Journal, 6/12/13]

20-Week Abortion Ban

2015: Tiffany Voted For A 20-Week Abortion Ban Without Exceptions For Rape Or Incest

2015: Tiffany Voted For A 20-Week Abortion Ban. On June 9, 2015, Tiffany voted for Senate Bill 179, which would, according to Politico, ban “all non-emergency abortion after 20 weeks. The legislation makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three and a half years in prison and $10,000 in fines.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-14 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 61-34 vote. Governor Scott Walker signed the legislation and it became law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Senate Bill 179; 2015 Senate Vote 61, 6/9/15; 2015 Wisconsin Act 56; Politico, 7/20/15]

• Legislation Banned Abortions After 20 Weeks And Made Performing An Abortion A Felony Punishable By Up To Three And A Half Years In Prison And $10,000 In Fines. According to Politico, “On Monday, Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill that bans all non-emergency abortion after 20 weeks. The legislation makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three and a half years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The only way abortions after 20 weeks are allowed is if the mother is likely to die or be severely injured. Anti-abortion activists have coalesced around 20 weeks because, they say, that’s when fetuses begin to feel pain. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, says that pain doesn’t occur until 27 weeks.” [Politico, 7/20/15]
• Legislation Did Not Include Exceptions For Rape Or Incest. According to the Associated Press, “But in the face of questions from anti-abortion conservatives over his commitment to the issue in the light of the campaign ad, Walker in March came out in support of the 20-week abortion ban. […] The governor`s signature makes Wisconsin the 15th state to pass similar bans. There is no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.” [Associated Press, 7/21/15]

2022: Tiffany Defended His Vote On The 20-Week Abortion Ban And Falsely Claimed It Contained Rape And Incest Exceptions

[VIDEO] Tiffany Said “I Certainly Stand By My Vote” On The 20-Week Abortion Ban. “I believe it’s a state issue. So first of all, for all of our viewers out there, I’m pro-life. I believe we should protect life whenever and however that we can. And it has really concerned me that we have had votes in Congress here over the last few months since the Dobbs decision where every Democrat has voted for unlimited abortions, third-trimester, partial-birth abortions Every Democrat in both the House and the Senate has voted for unlimited abortions. We have the votes. They’re on record. That’s barbaric. I think there’s a much better way to do this. And, for example, here in Wisconsin when I was in the Legislature five, six years ago, we passed a 20-week ban. So in other words, after 20 weeks, it would ban abortions. And when you think about the medical technology that we have these days, we save babies’ lives all the time after 20 weeks. I think that very much made sense to do it that way. I certainly stand by my vote.” [YouTube, Western Wisconsin Journal, 9/6/22]

[VIDEO] Tiffany Falsely Claimed That The 20-Week Abortion Ban He Voted Contained Exceptions For Rape And Incest. “JAMIE JOHNSON: How about the other end? When you say pro-life, again, people debate on how pro-life. So are you against all abortions? Even ones with in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother at risk? TOM TIFFANY: Yes, so if you look at for example the 20-week bill that we passed when I was in the State Legislature five, six years ago. There was an exception for the life of the mother in there and I believe – I’d have to double check this, but I believe there was an also an exception for rape and incest.” [YouTube, Western Wisconsin Journal, 9/6/22]

2022: Tiffany Supported A Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban

Tiffany Signaled Support For A Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban And Said “We Can Save Babies When They’re 20 Weeks And Older.” According to WPR, “A conservative Wisconsin congressman hinted that he would support a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks, calling it a ‘commonsense’ policy.  In the same interview, Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, said it is ‘proper’ for states to decide on abortion restrictions for themselves. Tiffany spoke on Wisconsi Public Radio's ‘Route 51’ show ahead of Tuesday's primary, in which he faces an unfunded and mostly unknown Republican candidate in the 7th Congressional District. In response to a question about whether he would favor ‘a federal law as it relates to abortion access,’ Tiffany talked about voting in favor of a 20-week abortion ban while he was a state legislator. Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed that bill into law in 2015. ‘We can save babies when they're 20 weeks (of gestation) and older,’ said Tiffany, a longtime state legislator from the Northwoods who was elected to Congress in 2020. ‘We can save those babies. And so I think there are good, commonsense things we can do.’” [WPR, 8/5/22]

15-Week Abortion Ban

2022: Tiffany Co-Sponsored A Federal 15-Week Abortion Ban

September 2022: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban Abortion After 15 Weeks. In September 2022, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.8814, dubbed the Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act, which established “a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable gestational age of the fetus is 15 weeks or more. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both. The bill provides exceptions for an abortion (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.8814 - Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act, 9/21/22]

• Legislation Banned Abortion At 15 Weeks. According to WRAL, “When Republican North Carolina U.S. Rep. Ted Budd — a candidate for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat — signed onto a U.S. House bill Tuesday seeking to ban abortion at 15 weeks, North Carolina Democrats and third-party groups were quick to see it as an advantage they could capitalize on. On a press call Thursday morning, state Democratic chairwoman Bobbie Richardson called out Budd’s co-sponsorship of H.R. 8814 as ‘further cementing that, if elected to the U.S. Senate, he will vote to take away women's rights and freedoms to make their own medical decisions.’” [WRAL, 9/15/22]
• Victims Of Rape Were Required To Obtain Documentation That They Received Medical Treatment Or Counseling For Rape And Wait At Least 48 Hours. According to Carolina Forward, “Paperwork for rape and incest exceptions: The bill does contain exceptions for rape and incest – but with caveats. Adult victims of rape must first obtain documentation that they have obtained medical treatment or counseling for the rape, and then wait at least 48 hours. This will obviously delay procedures, potentially significantly. A victim would be required to wait first for a counseling appointment to become available (which could be days, a week, or longer), and then wait two more additional days, before obtaining a legal abortion. Victims of rape who are minors must report the incident to the police or child welfare agency.” [Carolina Forward, 9/26/22]

Tiffany Said “I Could See At The Federal Level, Setting A Floor” Where “You Do Not Get To Abort A Baby After 15 Weeks.” According to Spectrum News, “Nearly two weeks ago, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced a federal ban on abortions in the Senate that would restrict abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Since the measure was introduced, members across the aisle have responded in concert to condemn the ban. Still, some Republicans support Graham's effort should it be implemented at the state level. ‘I believe it's primarily a state's issue and the states are going to have to figure that out. I could see at the federal level, setting a floor,’ Rep. Tom Tiffany R-Wis., told Spectrum News. Tiffany says he could see Congress creating a nationwide ban, ‘where you do not get to abort a baby after 15 weeks.’ The representative characterized Democrats voting to ‘allow unlimited abortions’ as ‘barbaric.’” [Spectrum News, 9/29/22]

[VIDEO] Tiffany: “Senator Lindsey Graham Introduced A 15 Week Bill Last Year. And I Supported The 15 Week Bill.” “I mean, Congress could step in and they can, Congress can certainly act. It can be both a state and federal issue. And for example, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a 15 week bill last year. And I supported the 15 week bill, just like I supported the 20 week bill, because I think it puts some reasonable restrictions around abortion, because the last thing I want to see happen is that we have unlimited abortion up to nine months. To me, that is unacceptable. I mean, think about having an abortion in the final trimester. Now it's to save the life of the mother. That's a whole another issue. But to simply do it, to end the baby's life in the final trimester, I think most people find that to be unacceptable.” [Drydenwire, Facebook, WI, 06/08/23]; 230608_BEF_501

Heartbeat Bill

2022-2023: Tiffany Co-Sponsored A FEderal heartbeat Bill That Would Bar Abortions After Six Weeks And Excluded Exceptions For Rape And Incest

June 2022: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Heartbeat Bill Legislation. In June 2022, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.705, dubbed the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2021, which made “it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion (1) without determining whether the fetus has a detectable heartbeat, (2) without informing the mother of the results, or (3) after determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat. It provides an exception for an abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical (but not psychological or emotional) disorder, illness, or condition. A physician who performs a prohibited abortion is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.705 - Heartbeat Protection Act of 2021, 6/16/22]

January 2023: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Heartbeat Bill Legislation. In January 2023, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.175, dubbed the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2023, which “it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform an abortion (1) without determining whether the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat, (2) without informing the mother of the results, or (3) after determining that a unborn child has a detectable heartbeat. A physician who performs a prohibited abortion is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.175 - Heartbeat Protection Act of 2023, 1/9/23]

• Legislation Would Functionally Ban Abortions Around Five To Six Weeks After Conception. According to the Meadville Tribune, “The proposed legislation won’t be acted on until Congress’s first session of 2023 because Democrats currently control the House of Representatives in Washington. The bill, as it’s currently written and could be amended, would outlaw abortions nationwide ‘without a check for a fetal heartbeat or if a fetal heartbeat is detectable.’ A fetal heartbeat can be detected by around five to six weeks after conception, according to the American Pregnancy Association, a national health organization that promotes reproductive and pregnancy wellness and advocates for pregnancy and family health issues. Kelly’s bill would fine and/or imprison for up to five years any physician who performs an abortion either without first checking for a heartbeat or performing an abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detectable. In any instance, the mother has no liability and won’t face a penalty in the proposed legislation.” [Meadville Tribune, 7/1/22]
• Legislation Did Not Include Exceptions For Rape Or Incest. According to WESA, “Kelly’s ‘Heartbeat Protection Act’ would essentially ban abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy — a time by which a pregnancy may not even have been detected. The bill would not penalize the person seeking the abortion, but anyone performing it could face fines and up to five years in prison. Abortions deemed necessary to protect the physical health or life of the parent would still be legal, but the bill provides no exception for pregnancies arising from rape or incest.” [WESA, 7/5/22]

Born Alive Legislation

2019: Tiffany Voted For So-Called “Born Alive” Legislation

2019: Tiffany Voted For “Born Alive” Legislation To Require Doctors And Nurses To Provide Care During A Failed Abortion Attempt. On June 5, 2019, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 179, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “require doctors and nurses present during a failed abortion attempt to provide the same care to the child as they would any other.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 62-35 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 18-14 vote. Governor Tony Evers vetoed the legislation and it failed to become law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 179; 2019 Senate Vote 33, 6/5/19; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/8/19]

• Legislation Would Require Doctors And Nurses Present During A Failed Abortion Attempt To Provide The Same Care To The Child As They Would Any Other. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The measure, Assembly Bill 179, would require doctors and nurses present during a failed abortion attempt to provide the same care to the child as they would any other. Intentionally causing the child's death could result in life in prison. Evers has said he would veto the bill and that it was designed to divide people. The fight over abortion comes at a time when Evers and Republicans who control the Legislature are finding little they can agree on. They have disagreed on a host of budget issues and lawmakers so far this year have approved few bills. The abortion legislation mirrors a bill Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocked in February. Similar legislation is also moving through other statehouses.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/8/19]
• Under The Legislation, Doctors And Health Care Providers Could Face Life Sentences In Prison For “Intentionally Causing The Death Of A Child Born Alive” After A Failed Abortion. According to CNN, “The measure, Assembly Bill 179, would mandate that health professionals do all they could to keep a baby alive if it was ‘born alive’ and would penalize anyone who let a baby die. Under the bill, doctors and health care providers could face life sentences in prison for ‘intentionally causing the death of a child born alive’ after a failed abortion. The bill would not penalize the mother.” [CNN, 5/22/19]

2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act

2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act. In January 2021, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.619, dubbed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which established “requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.619 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 1/28/21]

2023: Tiffany VOted For Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act

2023: Tom Tiffany Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Which Would Mandate Health Care Workers To Provide Proper Medical Care To An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted for Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would “require health care practitioners to provide the same care to a child that is ‘born alive’ after an abortion or attempted abortion as they would for a child born at the same gestational age and to ensure the child is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital; require hospital and clinic practitioners and employees to report any knowledge of failures to provide such care; and impose criminal fines and penalties for failures to meet these requirements. It would state that a child born alive under these conditions is a legal person under U.S. law, entitled to the protections of U.S. law, and it would specifically make any act that kills or attempts to kill such a child punishable as murder or attempted murder. The bill would also prohibit the prosecution of the mother of a child born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion and permit such mothers to seek relief through civil action against any person who violates the bill’s requirements, including monetary and punitive damages.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 220-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 29, 1/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]

• Republicans Argued The Bill Would Enhance Protections For An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Republicans say the bill (HR 26) from Scalise, and Reps. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., and Kat Cammack R-Fla., would increase protections for an infant born after an attempted abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23]
• Under The Bill, Any Violations By Health Care Workers Could Be Punished With Fines Or Up To Five Years In Prison But Mothers Would Be Protected From Any Penalties Or Prosecution. According to CNN, “Under the bill, health providers who fail to comply with the requirements for care could face fines or up to five years in prison. The bill would not impose penalties on the mother and would grant the mother protection from any kind of prosecution.” [CNN, 1/12/23]
• Opponents Of The Bill Argued It Would Restrict Abortion Access By Threatening Medical Workers And Emphasized That It Was Already Illegal To Intentionally Kill An Infant That Was Born Alive. According to CNN, “Opponents have argued that such measures restrict abortion access by threatening health care providers. It is already considered homicide in the US to intentionally kill an infant that is born alive.” [CNN, 1/12/23]
• The Bill Would Mandate For Infants That Survived Failed Abortions To Be Provided The Equal Medical Care Provided To Other Babies Born Prematurely And Require The Infant To Be Transported To A Hospital. According to The Hill, “The bill, which House Republicans vowed to bring up even before they clinched the majority, would mandate that an infant born alive after an attempted abortion receives the same degree of care that any other child born prematurely would receive. The measure also requires that the infant is taken to a hospital. And it threatens providers who don’t comply with a fine or up to five years in prison.” [The Hill, 1/11/23]
• Passage Of The Legislation Comes After The U.S. Supreme Court Struck Down Roe V. Wade In June 2022 And After Almost 50 Years Since The Roe V. Wade Ruling. According to The Hill, “House passage of the bill comes days before the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which made access to abortion a constitutional right. The justices struck down that decision in June.” [The Hill, 1/11/23]

2023: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Which Would Mandate Health Care Workers To Provide Proper Medical Care To An Infant Born After A Failed Abortion. In January 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “motion to recommit the bill that would require medical professionals to provide medical care for children who are born alive during an attempted abortion procedure to the House Judiciary Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 212-219. [House Vote 28, 1/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]

Selective Bans

2019: Tiffany Voted To Ban Abortions On Race, Sex, Or Disability

2019: Tiffany Voted For Legislation To Ban Abortions Based On Race, Sex, Or Disability Of A Fetus. On June 5, 2019, Tiffany voted for Assembly Bill 182, which would, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “ban women from seeking an abortion because of the race, sex or disability of a fetus, as long as the disability is considered compatible with life.” The legislation passed the Wisconsin Assembly on a 62-35 vote. It then passed the Wisconsin Senate on a 19-13 vote. Governor Tony Evers vetoed the legislation and it failed to become law. [Wisconsin Legislature, Assembly Bill 182; 2019 Senate Vote 35, 6/5/19; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/8/19]

• Legislation Would Ban Women From Seeking An Abortion Because Of The Race, Sex Or Disability Of A Fetus, As Long As The Disability Is Considered Compatible With Life. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Another measure Republicans are considering, Assembly Bill 182, would ban women from seeking an abortion because of the race, sex or disability of a fetus, as long as the disability is considered compatible with life. Democrats are contrasting the abortion bills with Republican opposition to Evers' plan to expand health-care under the Affordable Care Act for women's health and other programs. Evers' proposal would allow Planned Parenthood to receive more taxpayer funding for family planning services - an idea opposed by Republicans because the group is the nation's largest abortion provider.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/8/19]

COVID Funds

2020: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban COVID Relief Funds From Being Use For Abortions

May 2020: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Bar Federal Funds Allocated For COVID Response From Being Used For Abortion. In May 2020, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.6742, dubbed the Protecting Life in Crisis Act, which specified “that federal funds allocated for COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) response efforts may not, in general, be used for abortions” and restricted “the use of federal tax credits or other federal funding for health insurance coverage if the coverage includes abortions.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.6742 - Protecting Life in Crisis Act, 5/8/20]

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Tiffany Called For Federal Funding For Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Tiffany Said He Would Potentially Support Federal Funding For Crisis Pregnancy Centers. According to WPR, “Tiffany said he would also potentially support federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which have had a mission to dissuade women from getting abortions. Abortion rights or restrictions are expected to be among the dominant forces in the upcoming midterm elections. In Kansas this week, a proposal to remove abortion rights from the conservative state’s constitution lost in a landslide — something widely interpreted as a seismic event for the politics of abortion.” [WPR, 8/5/22]

Federal Lands

2022: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban Abortion Clinics From Operating On Federal Lands

July 2022: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban Abortion Clinics From Operating On Federal Lands. In July 2022, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.8263, dubbed the Protecting Life on Federal Lands Act, which would prohibit “a federal agency or department from leasing federal property to an abortion providing organization.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.8263 - Protecting Life on Federal Lands Act, 7/1/22]

Bonds

2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation Prohibiting The Use Of Federally Tax-Exempt Bonds To Fund The Construction Of Abortion Clinics

January 2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation Prohibiting The Use Of Federally Tax-Exempt Bonds To Fund The Construction Of Abortion Clinics. In January 2021, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.606, dubbed the No Abortion Bonds Act,  which “denies a tax exclusion for the interest paid on state and local bonds that are used to provide a facility owned or used (for any purpose) by an abortion provider for more than 30 days during a year in which interest is paid on the bonds.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.606 - No Abortion Bonds Act, 1/28/21]

Fetal Tissue

2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation To Ban Fetal Tissue Research

January 2021: Tiffany Co-Sponsored Legislation Prohibiting Research That Involved Human Tissue From An Induced Abortion. In January 2021, Tiffany co-sponsored H.R.563, dubbed the Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2021, which prohibited “the Department of Health and Human Services from conducting or supporting any research that involves the use of human fetal tissue from an induced abortion. The bill also prohibits soliciting or acquiring a donation of human fetal tissue from an induced abortion, other than for purposes of an autopsy or burial.” The legislation was introduced but no other action was taken. [Congress.gov, H.R.563 - Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act of 2021, 1/28/21]

Washington, D.C.

2022: Tiffany Voted Against Ending A Prohibition Of Local And Federal Funds For Abortion Services

2022: Tom Tiffany Voted Against Ending A Prohibition On The Use Of Local And Federal Funds For Abortion Services In D.C. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, which would “end a prohibition on the use of local and federal funds for abortion services in the District of Columbia.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 383, 7/20/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/20/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8294]

Abortion Access Protections

2022: Tiffany Voted Against Codifying Abortion Protections

2022: Tom Tiffany Voted Against Codifying The Right To Receive Abortion Services And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting Abortion Restrictions. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would “statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 219-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 360, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296]

• The Bill Specified The Factors That Courts Could Consider When Determining Whether A Regulation Were To Limit Or Impede Access To Abortion And Required The Party Defending The Regulation To Prove That It Advances The Safety Of Abortion Or The Patient’s Health. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would specify factors that courts may consider to determine whether a requirement or limitation impedes access to abortion services, including whether it interferes with providers' ability to provide services; poses a risk to patients' health; is likely to delay or deter patients in accessing services or necessitate in-person visits that would not otherwise be required; is likely to result in a decreased availability of services in a state or region; is likely to result in increased costs of providing or obtaining services; or imposes penalties that are not imposed on other health care providers for comparable conduct. It would require a party defending a requirement or limitation to establish that it significantly advances the safety of abortion services or patient health and that such goals cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Authorized The Justice Department, Medical Providers, And Individuals And Entities To Sue In Federal Court Against Any Governmental Entity That Were To Implement Abortion Restrictions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize the Justice Department, health care providers and private individuals and entities to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for injunctive relief against any state or government official charged with implementing or enforcing a requirement or limitation challenged as a violation of rights established by the bill. It would authorize district courts to award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and to award costs of litigation to a prevailing plaintiff. It would require courts to ‘liberally construe’ provisions of the bill to effectuate its purposes.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• H.R. 8296 Was An Identical Bill To The Abortion Protections Bill Passed In September 2021 By The House, H.R. 3755, But Adds Findings Over The Dobbs Case That Overturned Roe V. Wade. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill is substantively identical to HR 3755, which the House passed in September 2021, but adds findings related to the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Was Another Attempt To Codify Roe V. Wade After The Senate Failed To Advance The First Version Of The Bill In May 2022. According to The Washington Post, “One bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, would enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into law. The House already passed the bill last year, but it did not advance in a Senate vote in May. The House passed the bill, 219-210, prompting applause from Democrats in the chamber. All Republicans and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) voted against the measure.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• Republicans Falsely Mislabeled The Bill As The “Abortions On Demand Until Birth Act.” According to The Washington Post, “As further proof of their opposition to the measure, Republicans falsely renamed the legislation in their whip notice as the ‘Abortions on Demand until Birth Act’ — which is a misrepresentation of the bill — and repeated that claim on the House floor.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Establish The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Abortion Services And Their Patients The Right To Receive Them And Invalidate State Restrictions That Were Implemented After The Reversal Of Roe V. Wade. According to The New York Times, “A second measure, a version of which passed the House last year, would explicitly give health care providers the right to provide abortion services and their patients the right to obtain them, invalidating a variety of state restrictions that were enacted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade and ending the constitutional right to abortion. That second measure, the Women’s Health Protection Act, passed 219 to 210, also mainly along party lines, with one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, voting with Republicans.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Allow Abortions After Viability Only In Health- Or Life-Threatening Circumstances. According to The New York Times, “In reality, the Democratic bill allows abortions after viability only in circumstances when a doctor determines that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the patient’s life or health.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted for the “Fischbach, R-Minn., motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 209-218. [House Vote 359, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Women's Health Protection Act (HR 8296).” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Codifying Abortion Access Protections. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Women's Health Protection Act (HR 8296).” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208. [House Vote 303, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2021: Tom Tiffany Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Protect The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit Restrictions On Abortion. In September 2021, Tom Tiffany voted against the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 218-211. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill in February 2022. [House Vote 295, 9/24/21; Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]

• The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions And Establish That Health Care Providers Have A Right To Provide Abortions And Individuals Have The Right To Receive An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions, Including Measures Restricting Abortions Before Fetal Viability And When The Patient’s Life Is At Risk, Measures Requiring Justification For Seeking An Abortion, And Measures Requiring Medical Personnel To Provide Inaccurate Information Or Unnecessary Medical Tests To Discourage Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient’s life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers’ ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient’s health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Prohibit Limitations That Hinder Access To Abortion Services And Harassment Towards Abortion Providers And Facilities. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Codify Factors That Limit Abortion Access In Court, Including Restrictions That Impede Providers’ Abilities From Providing Abortions, Limitations That Risk The Health Of Patients, Restrictions On The Availability And Number Of Facilities, Increasing Abortion Costs, And Imposing Penalties Not Applicable To Other Health Care Providers. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would specify factors that courts may consider to determine whether a requirement or limitation impedes access to abortion services, including whether it interferes with providers’ ability to provide services; poses a risk to patients’ health; is likely to delay or deter patients in accessing services or necessitate in-person visits that would not otherwise be required; is likely to result in a decreased availability of services in a state or region; is likely to result in increased costs of providing or obtaining services; or imposes penalties that are not imposed on other health care providers for comparable conduct.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Require Defendants Of Abortion Limitations To Demonstrate That The Limitation Would Advance Abortion Services And Why A Less Restrictive Measure Would Be Ineffective. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would require a party defending a requirement or limitation to establish that it significantly advances the safety of abortion services or patient health and that such goals cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Allow The Department Of Justice, Health Care Providers And Individuals To Sue States Or Governmental Officials For Imposing Any Abortion Limitations. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize the Justice Department, health care providers and private individuals and entities to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for injunctive relief against any state or government official charged with implementing or enforcing a requirement or limitation challenged as a violation of rights established by the bill.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Authorize District Courts To Grant Equitable Relief And Award Costs Of Litigation To The Prevailing Plaintiff In Lawsuits Pertaining To Abortion Access Restrictions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would authorize district courts to award appropriate equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and to award costs of litigation to a prevailing plaintiff. It would require courts to ‘liberally construe’ provisions of the bill to effectuate its purposes.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Protect An Individuals’ Right To An Abortion And Put In Statute Health Care Providers’ Right To Provide Abortions Before Fetal Viability Without Limitations Imposed By States. According to NPR, “The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect a person’s ability to decide to continue or end a pregnancy and would enshrine into law health care providers’ ability to offer abortion services ‘prior to fetal viability’ without restrictions imposed by individual states, like requiring special admitting privileges for providers or imposing waiting periods.” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Establish A Statutory Right To Provide Abortions And A Corresponding Right For Patients To Receive Abortions, Free From Restrictions Specific To Abortion Facilities That Hinder Access. According to Act For Women, “WHPA would create a statutory right for health care providers to provide abortion care, and a corresponding right for their patients to receive that care, free from medically unnecessary restrictions that single out abortion and impede access.” [Act For Women, Accessed on 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access Even If The Supreme Court Were To Rule To Weaken Abortion Rights. According to Vox, “The proposed federal law would provide sweeping protections that ensure that people have abortion access even if the Supreme Court rules to weaken reproductive rights. “ [Vox, 2/28/22]
• While The Bill Would Protect Abortion Access, The Bill Would Not Supersede Laws Regarding Insurance Coverage For Abortions. According to Vox, “It wouldn’t, however, supersede laws addressing insurance coverage for abortions.” [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Measure Would Prohibit Restrictions Imposed By States, Including Mandatory Waiting Periods And Limitation On When A Pregnancy Can Be Terminated. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would prohibit some state-level restrictions such as bans on mandatory waiting periods and limits on when during pregnancy an abortion can be performed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
• The Bill Would Ban Restrictions On Abortions After Fetal Viability When The Pregnant Individual’s Life Is At Risk. According to NPR, “It also would prohibit restrictions on abortion after fetal viability ‘when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.’” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• Republicans Argued The Bill Was Too Extreme For Limiting States’ Abilities To Regulate Abortions. According to NPR, “Republicans argued that the bill goes too far, essentially limiting a state’s ability to regulate or restrict abortions.” [NPR, 9/24/21]
• Roe V. Wade Protected The Right To An Abortion Before Fetal Viability, Typically 23 Or 24 Weeks. According to Reuters, “The right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, typically around 23 or 24 weeks, has been protected under the Constitution since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Forbid Unnecessary Restrictions On Abortion, Including Forced Waiting Periods, Counseling And Ultrasounds. According to Act For Women, “WHPA protects the right to access abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on abortion—including mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, two-trip requirements, and mandatory ultrasounds.” [Act For Women, Accessed on 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Supersede State Laws Restricting Abortions And Effectively Neutralize State Laws In 19 States That Have Hindered Abortion Access Or Almost Banned Abortion. According to Vox, “The Women’s Health Protection Act would enshrine into federal law the right to access and perform an abortion, and it would supersede state laws on the issue. That’s notable because it would effectively neutralize laws in 19 states that have sought to severely curb access to abortion or ban it altogether.” [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Forbid Six-Week And 20-Week Abortion Bans. According to Vox, “If passed, the Women’s Health Protection Act would bar six-week and 20-week bans on abortions. “ [Vox, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Prevent “Medically Unnecessary” Abortion Restrictions, Including Mandatory Waiting Periods, Counseling, Telemedicine Bans, And Several Policies That Have Forced The Closure Of Abortion Clinics. According to The Washington Post, “The bill would eliminate a list of what proponents describe as ‘medically unnecessary’ antiabortion restrictions, including mandatory waiting periods, antiabortion counseling, telemedicine bans and various regulations on the layout, structure and staffing policies at abortion clinics, which have forced many clinics to shutter.” [The Washington Post, 2/28/22]
• The Bill Would Ensure Health Care Providers Have The Right To Provide Abortions Without Limitations, Including Restrictions Prior To Fetal Viability. According to Reuters, “The Women’s Health Protection Act, co-sponsored by 48 Senate Democrats, states that healthcare providers should be able to provide abortions without a number of barriers – including restrictions on abortions prior to fetal viability, which many states currently have in place.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]
• The U.S. Attorney General Would Be Able To Sue Any State Or Government Official For Imposing Abortion Restrictions. According to Reuters, “It states that the U.S. Attorney General can sue any state or government official who violates the terms of the law.” [Reuters, 2/28/22]

2022: Tiffany Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For Abortion Services

2022: Tom Tiffany Voted Against Prohibiting Individuals Acting Under State Law From Restricting An Individual’s Access To Out-Of-State Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting The Restriction Of Interstate Movement Against Any FDA-Approved Abortion Drug. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, which would “prohibit individuals from interfering with patients' ability to access to abortion services in another state where the services are legal. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from preventing, restricting or retaliating against health care providers' ability to provide abortion services that are legal in the provider's state to patients who do not reside in that state; a person's ability to assist in providing such services; or a person's ability to travel or assist another person traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. It would also prohibit individuals from preventing, restricting or retaliating against the interstate movement of any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a pregnancy.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 223-205, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 362, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297]

• The Bill Would Permit The U.S. Attorney General Or A Harmed Individual To Sue In Federal Court Against An Individual Who Violates The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “It would allow the U.S. attorney general or a harmed individual to bring a civil action in U.S. district court for declaratory and injunctive relief against an individual who violates the prohibitions.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22]
• The Bill Would Reaffirm The Right For An Individual Seeking Abortion Services To Travel Across State Lines Without Restrictions. According to The Washington Post, “Another bill, the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, would reaffirm the right for someone seeking an abortion to travel freely across state lines. The House passed that measure, 223-205, with three Republicans — Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) — joining all Democrats in backing the bill.” [The Washington Post, 7/15/22]
• Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher (D) From Texas: Prohibiting Travel Restrictions For Abortion Access Was Consistent With The Constitutional Right To Interstate Travel. According to The New York Times, “Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Democrat of Texas, said her bill prohibiting states from enacting or enforcing laws restricting travel to obtain an abortion was consistent with the constitutional right to interstate travel.” [New York Times, 7/15/22]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted for the “Johnson, R-La., motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 209-219. [House Vote 361, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act (HR 8297).” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Changing The Bill’s Title From The “Ensuring Access To Abortion Act Of 2022” To The “Ensuring Women’s Right To Reproductive Freedom Act.” In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany effectively voted against the manager’s amendment to the bill that would “change the title of the bill from the ‘Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022’ to the ‘Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act.’” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 217-204, thus the amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 304, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Interstate Travel For People Seeking Abortion Services In Other States. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1224) that would provide for House consideration of […] the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act (HR 8297).” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 218-208. [House Vote 303, 7/13/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1224]

Tiffany Would Not Answer If He Supports Allowing Citizens To Sue Anyone Who Helps Mothers Travel To Another State And Have The Procedure Done Where Abortions Are Still Allowed. According to WKOW, “The next legal showdown over abortion rights could revolve around efforts at the state level, deputizing citizens in an effort to discourage mothers from traveling to a state where abortions are still legal. Congressman Tom Tiffany (R-WI) would not say whether he supports the concept of allowing citizens to sue anyone who helps mothers travel to another state and have the procedure done where abortions are still allowed. ‘Those states are going to decide what they want to do,’ Tiffany said. ‘All I know is Roe v. Wade made us an outlier in the world.’” [WKOW, 7/1/22]

Contraception

2022: Tiffany Voted Against Codifying Access To Contraceptives

2022: Tom Tiffany Voted Against Codifying The Right To Access Contraceptives And The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Contraceptives To Their Patients. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would “protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 228-195, thus the bill was sent to Senate. [House Vote 385, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]

• The Bill Was A Resulted From The U.S. Supreme Court’s Overturn Of Roe V. Wade And Concerns That The Court May Revisit Same-Sex Marriage And The Right To Contraception. According to The New York Times, “House Democratic leaders opted to move forward with the bill after the Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion rights raised worries about the prospect that the justices might revisit cases that affirmed same-sex marriage rights and the right to contraception. The debate in Congress thrust the issue into the midterm election campaign, where Democrats are eager to draw a distinction between their party’s support for L.G.B.T.Q. rights and opposition by many Republicans.” [New York Times, 7/19/22]
• The Bill Would Establish The Federal Right For Contraception Access And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Contraceptives. According to Reuters, “The bill would create a federal right for people to access contraceptives and for doctors and pharmacists to provide them. Contraceptives are used by 88% of U.S. women of childbearing age who are not trying to get pregnant, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group.” [Reuters, 7/21/22]
• Although None Have Passed, Several State Legislatures Have Introduced Legislation To Restrict Contraceptive Access And 12 States Currently Permit Health Care Providers To Refuse To Prescribe Contraception. According to Reuters, “Some state legislatures have introduced bills to restrict access to contraceptives, though they have not passed. In addition, 12 states allow health providers to refuse contraception, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” [Reuters, 7/21/22]
• The Bill Would Protect Oral And Emergency Contraceptives, Intrauterine Devices And Condoms. According to The Hill, “Contraceptives protected under the legislation include oral and emergency medications, intrauterine devices and condoms.” [The Hill, 7/21/22]
• The Bill Would Allow The U.S. Attorney General, Health Care Providers And Injured Individuals To Sue States That Violate The Right To Contraception Access. According to The Hill, “Additionally, the bill authorizes the attorney general, health care providers and other individuals to take civil action against any states that violate the provisions of the bill.” [The Hill, 7/21/22]
• Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Was Too Broad And Could Violate Religious Liberty Protections. According to Congressional Quarterly, “But some House Republicans who opposed the contraception bill, sponsored by Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., said they worried the legislation was too broad and could limit protections under a religious liberty law known as the Religious Restoration Freedom Act of 1993. They also worried that the bill could violate other federal and state moral protection laws.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
• Some House Republicans Claimed The Bill Would Increase Funding For Abortion Providers And That The Right To Contraception Would Be Interpreted To Protect Medication Abortion Drugs. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Other Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill would increase funds for abortion providers and be interpreted to cover the right to medication abortion drugs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]
• Congressman Frank Pallone (D) Clarified That The Bill Defined Contraceptives As FDA-Regulated Products And Emphasized That The Bill Would Not Prevent The FDA From Removing Unsafe Products. According to Congressional Quarterly, “But House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., disagreed with that interpretation. ‘This bill defines contraceptives as those legally marked under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,’ said Pallone, referring to the 1938 law that granted FDA authority. ‘Nothing prevents FDA to [sic] remove unsafe products from the market.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted for the “Hinson, R-Iowa, motion to recommit the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.” The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote 190-234. [House Vote 384, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “adoption of the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Included Biological Products And FDA-Regulated Products In The Definition Of “Contraceptives,” Specified That “Health Care Providers” Were Authorized Providers, And Clarified That The Contraception Access Bill Did Not Sanction Forced Sterilization. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany effectively voted against the management’s amendment, which would “specify that the bill's definition of ‘contraceptive’ includes biological products and is limited to products legally marketed under existing Food and Drug Administration regulations; clarify the bill's definition of ‘health care provider’ to state that providers must be authorized by the state to provide health care services; specify that the bill may not be construed to sanction sterilization procedures without a patient's informed consent; and make technical changes.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 219-200, thus the manager’s amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 366, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]

2022: Tom Tiffany Effectively Voted Against Protecting Access To Contraceptives. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Tom Tiffany voted against the “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 1232) that would provide for one hour of general debate on each bill.” The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote 219-199. [House Vote 365, 7/19/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/19/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 1232]