U.S. Congress Roll Call Votes on Abortion and Other Right-to- Life Issues During 1997 and 1998

Published by the National Right to Life Committee, October 1998
(202) 626-8820

This is a compilation of the most significant congressional votes on abortion, assisted suicide, and other right-to-life issues that occurred in Congress during 1997 and 1998.

This scorecard includes specific information on how each lawmaker voted on the issues of key importance to the pro-life movement - - a total of 20 roll call votes in the House of Representatives and 15 in the Senate. In addition, it provides a "score" for each lawmaker, which is the percentage of times that he or she voted in accord with the position of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on these issues.

Overview: Congress and the President

There was a great deal of congressional activity on right-to- life issues during 1997 and 1998. Pro-life forces had considerable success in the House of Representatives, which approved numerous pro-life bills and amendments. However, several major pro-life initiatives died in the Senate - - in some cases, blocked by minorities of senators who were able to use Senate rules to kill measures, such as the Child Custody Protection Act (described below), that were supported by a majority of senators.

One major pro-life priority, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, was approved by both houses of Congress, but then vetoed by President Clinton. The House voted to override the veto, but in the Senate pro-life forces fell three votes short of the required two-thirds majority.

In several other cases, lawmakers were forced to drop pro-life provisions when President Clinton threatened to veto the broader spending bills to which they were attached. That was the fate, for example, of provisions approved by the House to block the Food and Drug Administration from approving the French abortion pill, RU 486, and of legislation to curb the Administration's promotion of abortion through the foreign aid program.

How to Interpret this Scorecard

Roll call votes on the House and Senate floors determine the outcome of many important pro-life issues. However, they do not tell the whole story. In any given year, a lawmaker casts floor votes only on a limited number of abortion-related issues, and votes on these will provide only limited information on the representative's overall position on abortion policy. Therefore, an annual "scorecard" such as this one should be compared with compilations from earlier years, and evaluated in combination with reliable information regarding the lawmaker's positions on pro-life issues that did not come to a vote during a given year.

Often, a lawmaker's true position on an issue is demonstrated by his or her votes on so-called "procedural" motions, as much or more than votes on final passage of a given bill. Votes on " procedural" matters are reported here when they amounted, in reality, to votes to determine the content or outcome of legislation.

VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Partial-Birth Abortion
House Votes No. 1-3

1-3. During 1997-98, Congress approved a bill to place a national ban on partial-birth abortion, except to save the life of the mother. President Clinton vetoed the bill. The House of Representatives overrode the veto, but in the Senate pro-life forces fell three votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1122), authored by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), would make it a federal offense to perform a "partial-birth abortion," defined in the bill as "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." The bill contains an exception for any case in which "a partial-birth abortion . . . is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

Vote No. 1 in this scorecard shows the roll call by which the House initially passed the bill on March 20, 1997, by a vote of 295-136 (House roll call 65).

Subsequently, the bill's prime Senate sponsor, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), agreed to certain harmless revisions to the bill, in return for the endorsement of the American Medical Association. The Senate approved the bill with those revisions (see Senate Vote No. 1). The amended bill then was sent back to the House, which approved it on Oct. 8, 1997, by a vote of 296-132, shown as Vote No. 2 (House roll call 500).

On October 10, 1997, President Clinton vetoed the bill. On July 23, 1998, the House overrode the veto, 296-132, shown here as Vote No. 3 (House roll call 325). This was 10 votes more than the required two-thirds majority. However, the bill subsequently died when the Senate failed to override the veto (see Senate Vote No. 2).

[Note: President Clinton had vetoed a similar bill to ban partial-birth abortions in 1996. The Senate also sustained that veto.]

Abortion on Military Bases
House Votes No. 4-5

4-5. Votes No. 4 and No. 5 deal with the issue of whether U.S. military medical facilities should provide abortions. In 1996, Congress (over President Clinton's objections) enacted a ban on the performance of abortions at U.S. military medical facilities (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), even if the direct costs were paid by the clients. On June 19, 1997, pro-abortion Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization bill (HR 1119) to repeal the pro-life policy, and thereby require military facilities to provide abortion on request to military personnel and dependents, with clients paying the direct costs. The Harman Amendment was rejected, 196-224, shown here as Vote No. 4 (House roll call 217). The Senate also rejected an attempt to repeal the pro-life policy (see Senate Vote No. 3).

The issue was revisited during consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization bill, on May 20, 1998. This time, pro- abortion Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) offered the amendment to repeal the pro-life policy. The pro-abortion amendment was rejected, 190-232, shown here as Vote No. 5 (House roll call 171). The Senate also rejected an attempt to repeal the policy (see Senate Vote No. 4), so it remains in effect.

Transportation of Minors for Abortions
House Votes No. 6-7

6-7. The Child Custody Protection Act (HR 3682), sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across a state line for an abortion, if this circumvents a state law requiring parental or judicial involvement in the minor's abortion decision. The bill would protect the effectiveness of the parental involvement laws of more than 20 states.

When HR 3682 came before the House on July 15, 1998, pro- abortion Congressman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) offered what is called a "motion to recommit" the bill. If successful, this motion would have gutted the bill, replacing it with an alternative proposal under which interstate transportation of a minor would be illegal only when "force or the threat of force" is used.

In short, the Scott motion would have given the congressional stamp of approval to infringements of parental rights, rather than affirming and protecting those rights. Fortunately, the Scott motion was rejected, 158-269, shown here as Vote No. 6 (House roll call 279).

The House then passed the Child Custody Protection Act on a vote of 276-150, shown here as Vote No. 7 (House roll call 280). The bill was later blocked by pro-abortion members of the Senate.

Hyde Amendment (Federal Funding of Abortion)
House Vote No. 8

8. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment - - named after pro-life champion Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il.) - - has prohibited funding of abortion (with narrow exceptions) by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which administers the massive Medicaid program and most other federal health programs. The Hyde Amendment is a "rider" to the annual DHHS appropriations bill.

In 1997, Congressman Hyde offered a revised version of his amendment, which clarified that states may not use federal funds to pay the costs of placing Medicaid patients in managed-care plans (such as HMOs), if the plans include coverage of abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). Mr. Hyde offered this amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998 DHHS appropriations bill (HR 2264) on Sept. 11, 1997, and it was adopted by a vote of 270-150, shown here as Vote No. 8 (House roll call 388). The Senate later approved the same language on a voice vote, and it became law.

Funding of Abortion by Bureau of Prisons
House Vote No. 9

9. On Sept. 25, 1997, the House considered an appropriations bill (HR 2267) that contained a provision to prohibit funding of abortions by the federal Bureau of Prisons, except where the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape. On Vote No. 9 (House roll call 447), the House rejected an amendment by pro-abortion Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia, to remove the pro-life provision, 155- 264. Thus, the pro-life policy was continued.

FDA Approval of Abortion-Inducing Drugs
House Vote No. 10

10. On June 24, 1998, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR 4101), pro-life Congressman Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) offered an amendment to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using federal funds "for the testing, development, or approval . . . of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU 486 abortion pill). The Coburn Amendment passed, 223-202, shown here as Vote No. 10 (House roll call 260). However, the language was dropped from the final bill under a veto threat from President Clinton.

Abortion Insurance for Federal Employees
House Vote No. 11

11. On July 16, 1998, the House voted on whether to continue an existing ban on coverage of abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest) under federal employees' health insurance plans. The federal government provides, on average, 72% of the cost of federal employees' health plans.

The issue came up during House consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations bill for the Treasury Department and certain other federal agencies (HR 4104). The bill includes funding for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. Pro- abortion Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct.) offered an amendment to remove the pro-life provision. The amendment was rejected, 183- 239, shown here as Vote No. 11 (House roll call 288). The pro- life policy was therefore continued.

Tax-Funded Abortions in D.C.
House Vote No. 12

12. Under the Constitution, the District of Columbia (D.C.) is a federal jurisdiction, over which Congress has complete legislative authority. The entire budget of the Washington, D.C. city government is appropriated by Congress. For several years, Congress has attached a "rider" to the annual D.C. appropriations bill to prohibit the city government from using public funds (including funds raised through local taxes) to pay for abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest).

On August 6, 1998, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 1999 D.C. appropriations bill (HR 4380), Eleanor Holmes Norton - - the non-voting elected delegate for D.C. - - offered an amendment to nullify the pro-life policy. Norton's amendment was rejected, 180-243, shown here as Vote No. 12 (House roll call 408). Thus, the pro-life policy was continued.

Foreign Aid for Abortion-Promoting Organizations
House Votes No. 13-17

13-17. During 1997, the House conducted multiple roll calls on the issue of whether the U.S. should fund organizations that promote abortion as a method of population control or "family planning" in foreign nations.

The U.S. spends about a half-billion dollars annually on so- called "population assistance" programs overseas. Much of this money is spent in countries in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere that have laws protecting unborn children from abortion. Under the "Mexico City Policy" adopted by Presidents Reagan and Bush, private organizations that performed or promoted abortion (with narrow exceptions) were ineligible for these funds.

However, President Clinton abolished the Mexico City Policy as soon as he took office in 1993. Subsequently, some senior Clinton Administration officials aggressively pushed the doctrine that abortion should be legalized as a "fundamental right" in all nations. The Administration provides heavy funding to organizations - - such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - - that actively campaign to legalize abortion in less-developed nations.

Vote No. 13 (House roll call 22), which occurred on Feb. 13, 1997, was on a resolution backed by President Clinton (H.J. Res. 36) to allow the Clinton Administration to spend an additional $123 million in foreign aid "population assistance" funds during Fiscal Year 1997, without pro-life language to curb the Administration's promotion of legalized abortion through the program. Over the objections of NRLC and other pro-life groups, the resolution passed, 220-209 - - a pro-life loss. Subsequently, the Senate also approved the resolution (see Senate Vote No. 9), and it became law.

On June 5, 1997, during action on the State Department authorization bill (HR 1757), the House considered an amendment offered by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to restore the Mexico City Policy - - that is, to ban funding of organizations that perform abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest) or that lobby to legalize abortion in foreign nations. The Smith Amendment also required a cutoff of U.S. funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) unless that agency ceased all activities in the People's Republic of China, which relies heavily on forced abortion in its population-control program.

Pro-abortion Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Ca.) offered a "killer substitute" to allow continued U.S. funding of groups that perform abortions or lobby in support of legalizing abortion in foreign nations, as long as they do not use U.S. funds directly for those purposes - - merely a restatement of the status quo. The Campbell Amendment also allowed the UNFPA to remain active in China and continue to receive U.S. funds, although at a funding level below what the agency would receive if it avoided involvement in China.

On June 5, 1997, the House rejected the pro-abortion Campbell substitute, 218-200, and then adopted the pro-life Smith Amendment, 232-189, shown here as Votes 14 and 15 (House roll call numbers 167 and 168). Note: A number of House members first voted in favor of the Campbell Amendment - - which if adopted would have killed the Smith Amendment and preserved the status quo - - but then, after the Campbell Amendment was rejected, voted in favor of the Smith Amendment too. These vote-switchers cannot be regarded as genuine supporters of the pro-life policy.

Subsequently, a somewhat weaker version of the Smith Amendment was included in a final version of HR 1757 that was approved by both houses, but at the deadline for this scorecard (October 12, 1998), President Clinton was expected to veto this bill.

The issue was revisited on Sept. 4, 1997, during consideration of the foreign aid appropriations bill (HR 2159). Pro-life Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), James Barcia (D-Mi.), and others offered an NRLC-backed amendment to restore the pro-life Mexico City Policy. Pro-abortion Reps. Ben Gilman (R-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D- Ca.) offered a "killer amendment" which, if adopted, would have effectively nullified the Smith Amendment by allowing funding of any group that the Clinton Administration asserted did not " promote" abortion "as a method of family planning." This language was deliberately crafted to be so vague that, in the hands of the Administration, it would not have prevented funding even of organizations that run networks of abortion clinics, or that campaign to legalize abortion in other countries.

The pro-abortion Gilman-Pelosi Amendment was narrowly defeated, 218-210, shown here as Vote No. 16 (House roll call 362). The House then adopted the pro-life Smith-Barcia Amendment, 234-191, shown here as Vote No. 17 (House roll call 363). Subsequently, because of a veto threat from President Clinton, the pro-life language was not included in the final foreign aid legislation sent to the President; several provisions strongly sought by Clinton also were dropped.

Note: Lawmakers who voted first for the unsuccessful Gilman- Pelosi "killer" amendment, but who then voted to pass the Smith- Barcia Amendment, cannot be regarded as dependable supporters of the pro-life policy.

Tax Funding of Assisted Suicide
House Vote No. 18

18. The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act (HR 1003), sponsored by Congressman Ralph Hall (D-Tx.) and backed by NRLC, directed that neither federal funds (such as Medicare or Medicaid) nor federal facilities (such as veterans' and military hospitals) may be used to perform "assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing." The House passed the bill on April 10, 1997, by a vote of 398-16, shown here as Vote No. 18 (House roll call 75). The Senate passed the bill 99-0 on April 16, 1997. On April 18, 1997, President Clinton signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act into law.

Free Speech About Politicians ("Campaign Reform")
House Votes No. 19-20

19-20. In August, 1998, the House approved a so-called "campaign reform" bill, sponsored by pro-abortion Reps. Chris Shays (R-Ct.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), that would have placed sweeping restrictions on free speech about federal politicians.

The Shays-Meehan bill (very similar to the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate) contains numerous restrictions on the right of citizen groups, such as NRLC and NRLC affiliates, to communicate with the public regarding the votes and positions of those who hold or seek federal office - - and even regarding upcoming votes in Congress.

For example, one provision would make it unlawful for any group (other than a federal political action committee, or PAC) to even mention the name of a member of Congress or candidate for Congress, in a broadcast communication to the public, for 60 days before a primary or general election. Other provisions would place groups at legal risk every time they express approval or disapproval of a politician's position in a manner that can be interpreted as "support for" or "opposition to" that politician.

NRLC strongly opposes such restrictions on free speech about politicians, as do many other organizations. On July 13, 1998, NRLC and 52 other organizations sent a letter to House members, stating that "our organizations regard the vote on the Shays- Meehan bill to be among the most important votes of the 105th Congress, and this roll call will be communicated to our members - - numbering collectively in the millions - - in a manner that underscores its importance." Among the other signers of the letter were the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council.

Vote No. 19 (House roll call 379) shows the August 3, 1998 roll call by which the House gave initial approval to the Shays- Meehan measure, 237-186, by adopting it in preference to another, less sweeping measure. Vote No. 20 (House roll call 405) is the roll call by which the House passed the bill on August 6, 1998, by a vote of 252-179, under the bill number HR 2183.

The Senate never took up the House-passed bill. However, on three occasions during 1997-98, Senate supporters of the similar McCain-Feingold bill failed to overcome a filibuster led by pro- life Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (see Senate Votes No. 14-15). Therefore, Congress did not approve any bill to restrict free speech about politicians.

[NRLC's objections to the sweeping restrictions contained in the Shays-Meehan legislation are explained in detail in materials available from NRLC, including "An Open Letter from NRLC to the Nation's Roman Catholic Bishops" (www.nrlc.org/mccainbishop.html); "An Analysis of the Speech-Restriction Provisions of the Shays- Meehan Bill" (www.nrlc.org/SHAYSANA.html); and "Do American Voters Need Speech Nannies?" (www.nrlc.org/dimwit.html). Extensive additional information on the subject may be found at www.nrlc.org/campaign.html.]

Copies of this 12-page NRLC congressional scorecard may be purchased for $15.00 per 100 copies, or $90.00 per 1,000 copies. Send check or money order to NRLC, Federal Legislative Office, 419 Seventh St., Northwest, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20004. telephone (202) 626-8820, fax (202) 347-3668, e-mail Legfederal@aol.com. Please make check payable to: NRLC.

Short Descriptions of House Votes

Here are short descriptions of the basic issue for each roll call vote in the House of Representatives recorded in this scorecard. For more complete descriptions, please see the explanatory material above.

Votes 1-3: Should partial-birth abortions be banned, except to save the life of the mother?

Votes 4-5: Should U.S. military medical facilities be prohibited from performing abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest?

Votes 6-7: Should it be a federal crime for a non-parent to take a minor girl across state lines for an abortion, if this circumvents a state law that says her parents (or a judge) have a right to be involved in her abortion decision?

Vote 8: Should states be prohibited from using federal funds to pay for health plans that cover abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest)?

Vote 9: Should the federal Bureau of Prisons be prohibited from paying for abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape?

Vote 10: Should the Food and Drug Administration be prohibited from testing, developing, or approving drugs for chemically induced abortion?

Vote 11: Should federal employees' health insurance plans be prohibited from covering abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest)?

Vote 12: Should the Washington, D.C. city government be allowed to use congressionally appropriated funds, generated by local taxes, to pay for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest)?

Vote 13: Should the Clinton Administration be authorized to accelerate spending on foreign aid for "population assistance," without safeguards to curb the Administration's promotion of abortion through the program?

Votes 14-17: Should the U.S. foreign aid program for "population assistance" be prohibited from giving money to private organizations that perform abortions or that campaign to legalize abortion in foreign nations?

Vote 18: Should federal funds be used to provide physician- assisted suicide, euthanasia, or "mercy killing"?

Votes 19-20: Should federal law restrict the right of citizen groups to freely criticize or praise the positions or voting records of federal politicians in communications to the public?

Key to House Vote Symbols

X Vote for pro-life policy (supported NRLC position)
O Vote for anti-life policy (opposed NRLC position)
? Absent or not voting
P Voted "present"
C Voted "present" to avoid possible conflict of interest
S Speaker (usually exercises option not to vote)
I Not a House member at the time of the vote