This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/abortion-bill-dropped-amid-concerns-of-female-gop-lawmakers/2015/01/22/56ffafea-a24a-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
House Republicans pass watered-down antiabortion bill House Republicans pass watered-down antiabortion bill
(about 6 hours later)
House Republicans passed a watered-down antiabortion bill Thursday after withdrawing a more restrictive measure that some female GOP lawmakers argued would hurt the party’s efforts to broaden its appeal to women and younger voters. An emboldened group of moderate House Republicans put their leaders on notice this week that they intend to steer a more pragmatic course on social issues — including abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration — as the party tries to position itself for the 2016 presidential election.
The rebellion on the abortion bill, led by women and moderates, was an illustration of some of the new challenges the party faces as a result of its expanded majority in the House. The 246-member GOP caucus is now experiencing rifts that previously did not exist, and those divisions are largely being driven by concern among moderates that they could face tough reelection battles in 2016, when more Democratic and independent voters are expected to turn out for presidential election. About two dozen Republicans, led mostly by a small group of female lawmakers, forced the House leadership to pull an antiabortion bill from consideration and replace it with a less restrictive measure Thursday. The episode exposed a growing concern within the GOP that emphasizing culture-war issues in the new Congress could distract from the party’s broader agenda and upend hopes of retaking the White House.
Already this month, a large bloc of moderate Republicans voted against a spending bill that would repeal President Obama’s changes to immigration policy enacted by executive action. More than two dozen Republicans from metro areas with large immigrant populations also voted against an amendment to the bill that would end temporary legal protections to the children of illegal immigrants. “Week one, we had a speaker election that didn’t go the way that a lot of us wanted it to. Week two, we were debating deporting children, and again, not a conversation a lot of us wanted to have then,” lamented Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). “And week three, we’re now debating rape and abortion, again, an issue that most of us didn’t campaign on or really wanted to engage on at this time. And I just can’t wait for week four.”
On the abortion measure, as many as two dozen lawmakers, led by Reps. Renee L. Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), raised concerns with Republican leaders about holding a vote on a restrictive abortion bill so early in the year. The latest showdown also exposed a GOP leadership struggling to maintain control of a still-fractious party, despite its expanded majority in the House and its newly achieved majority in the Senate. A similar revolt by moderates erupted last week on a spending bill tied to immigration policy.
The “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” would ban abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped but that she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement. Thursday’s vote was a setback for the party’s most strident antiabortion voices, and it came as thousands of activists marched in the streets of Washington to mark the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
A vote had been scheduled for Thursday to coincide with the annual March for Life, a gathering that brings thousands of antiabortion activists to Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. In a show of solidarity with marchers, House Republican leaders planned to push through a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill included exemptions for cases involving severe health risks, incest or rape, but a rape victim could claim the exemption only if the attack had been reported to law enforcement.
But Republican leaders dropped those plans after failing to win over the bloc of lawmakers. A similar version of the bill easily passed the GOP-controlled House in 2013 and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had vowed to bring it up for a vote. The GOP critics, all of whom oppose abortion, said the bill went too far and would expose Republicans in swing districts to a barrage of attack ads in 2016 from women’s rights groups and Democrats. They worry that they could be particularly disadvantaged on abortion and other women’s issues if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Demo­cratic nominee for president.
Instead, the House voted 242 to 179 on Thursday to prohibit federal funding for abortions — a more innocuous antiabortion measure that the Republican-controlled chamber has passed before. More robust moderate voices could affect the outcome of other contentious issues. Some of them have warned about the political consequences of a protracted fight over immigration reform. The House is expected to approve an aggressive border-security bill next week despite Democratic opposition.
A senior GOP aide said that concerns had been raised “by men and women members that still need to be worked out.” The aide, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the plans, said in an e-mail that Thursday’s vote will help “advance the pro-life cause” and that GOP leaders “remain committed to continue working through the process [on the Pain Capable bill] to make sure it, too, is successful.” The bill comes as Democrats and Republicans are fighting over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Other aides said that leaders were eager to avoid political fallout from a large number of female Republicans voting against an abortion bill in the early stages of the new GOP-controlled Congress. Following President Obama’s decision last year to use executive authority to change immigration policy, Republicans set DHS on a shorter funding timetable, hoping to prepare a legislative response that would stall the president’s initiative.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the bill’s lead sponsor, had predicted Wednesday that his proposal would easily pass because it “has overwhelming support among the American people.” House Republicans passed a spending bill last week that would repeal Obama’s executive actions. But several moderates voted against the bill, warning that it went too far by revoking temporary legal protections for “dreamers,” young people brought to this country illegally as children, who have served as the emotional centerpiece of the debate.
Leaders of several conservative groups said Thursday that they will continue pressing GOP leaders to pass Franks’s bill. The bill is not expected to advance in the Senate, where Democrats are threatening a filibuster, which raises the possibility of another deadline-driven partisan fight that could halt the operations of a sprawling federal department.
“The results of the 2014 midterm elections made clear that this Congress has been given a direct mandate to protect unborn children and their mothers from late-term abortion, stop taxpayer funding of abortion and defend conscience rights,” said the leaders of the Susan B. Anthony List, the March for Life Education and Defense Fund and the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee. In recent years, abortion has been a largely unifying issue for the GOP, but on Thursday, the difficulty of balancing antiabortion views with concerns about women’s rights was evident.
But Ellmers and Walorski had withdrawn their support and voiced concerns during the annual Republican policy retreat in Hershey, Pa., last week. Ellmers did so again Wednesday at a closed-door House GOP meeting in the basement of the Capitol, according to several people who attended. Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) was one of the women who raised objections to the initial measure. “We have a responsibility,” she said, “as the elected body representing our constituents, to protect the most vulnerable among us — and ensure that women facing unwanted pregnancies do not face judgment or condemnation, but have positive support structures and access to health care to help them through their pregnancies.”
Seeking to rebut growing criticism from conservatives, Ellmers said on Facebook Wednesday evening that she would vote for the bill: “I have and will continue to be a strong defender of the prolife community,” she wrote. She had already drawn sharp rebukes on the popular conservative blog Red State, which had a headline: “Renee Ellmers is Worse Than a Democrat.” The House then voted on a bill that would simply ban taxpayer-funded abortions; it passed 242 to 179, with three Democrats voting yes and one Republican voting no.
She had recently asked leaders to reconsider holding the vote, noting that Republicans had faced harsh criticism from Democrats in recent years for mounting a “war on women” by passing restrictive abortion legislation and other similar bills. The retreat on the initial bill was another setback for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team. People familiar with the process said objections were first raised about two weeks ago and boiled over at a closed-door congressional GOP retreat in Hershey, Pa., last weekend. Rep. Renee L. Ellmers (R-N.C.), a critic of the bill, and others expressed concern again at the weekly House GOP meeting Wednesday, according to aides.
“The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn’t be on an issue where we know that millennials — social issues just aren’t as important” to them, she said in an interview with National Journal. In a last-ditch attempt to shore up support, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) met with Ellmers, Walorski and more than a dozen other female lawmakers Wednesday afternoon in his office. After discussing several options through the day, GOP leaders abruptly pulled the bill from the floor schedule.
With word of the opposition spreading, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) conferred nervously off the House floor after a midday vote. From there, Scalise headed to a meeting in his office suite with Ellmers, Walorski, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) — a lead co-sponsor of the bill — and several other women. The bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), called the decision to withdraw the bill “one of the most disappointing moments of my life.” But he said leaders had assured him that the bill will be debated and voted on at a later date.
In a caucus dominated by men, a meeting with top leaders requested and attended almost exclusively by women is a rare sight. One by one they exited the meeting and remained tight-lipped. “The good news: We are talking to each other. There’s no acrimony. Nobody’s yelling at each other. In my mind, that’s a really good sign,” he said.
Walorski said the dispute “is no different” than conversations that occur before votes on other legislation. When pressed to explain her specific concerns, she rushed off: “I can’t. I can’t.” Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), a co-sponsor of the bill, faulted GOP leaders for failing to follow “regular order” and rushing the bill to the floor to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s historic Roe v. Wade decision.
Others seen exiting included Reps. Kristi L. Noem (R-S.D.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) and Ann Wagner (R-Mo.). Hartzler had already signaled her support for the bill to reporters. The other women declined to comment. “If you don’t do business and let the process work, you just run into trouble every time,” she said.
The impasse prompted Tony Perkins, who leads the conservative Family Research Council, to visit the Capitol on Wednesday to meet with Scalise. Others suggested that Republican leaders should have been more aware of the political effects of such a bill on female voters in swing districts.
He cited “a lot of misconceptions” for causing last-minute disputes with the bill. “We’re talking about a measure that would limit abortions after five months,” he said. “America is only one of four nations that allows abortions throughout the entire pregnancy.” Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a freshman representing a Miami-area district that is a top target for both parties, reiterated his antiabortion position but said the bill “threatened” the rights of rape victims. “I’m certainly not going to ever put myself in a position where I’m telling any woman whether their account of a rape is valid or not,” he said.
Women’s rights groups and Democrats have denounced the legislation as dangerous and unconstitutional. In a message to group members, the National Organization for Women cited federal statistics showing that just 35 percent of rape victims report the incident to police — and said that the bill would do nothing to increase the rate of reporting. Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), a former federal prosecutor from the Philadelphia suburbs, agreed. He said he was concerned about making rape victims “come forward and relive the issue through having to further testify. I wanted that to be considered in everybody’s thinking.”
Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cheered the decision of GOP leaders. Angry antiabortion activists noted that Ellmers, Walorski and other critics had voted for a similar version of the bill two years ago. But the stricter reporting requirements had been added at the last minute as part of a procedural vote before final passage, according to aides familiar with the process.
“I never thought I would see the day that the tea-party-led House of Representatives would wake up to the fact that their priorities — outright abortion bans — are way out of touch with the American people,” she said in a statement. “The GOP drafted a bill so extreme and so out of touch with the voters that even their own membership could not support.” Antiabortion groups had been optimistic about the bill’s chances not only because Republicans had supported an identical bill before but also because it was unveiled so early in the new congressional term.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday morning that she “didn’t know what to make” of the GOP revolt, but she said that the other abortion bill slated for a vote is more troubling than the one that was scuttled. Pulling the bill “is not a deft political maneuver, by any standard,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a national antiabortion group. The decision “breeds a little bit of discontent,” she added.
“I don’t know if that was about politics, but in terms of policy, what they are bringing to the floor now is worse,” she said. “Sometimes, these moments help clarify resolve and where it is missing,” she said. Dannenfelser promised to keep pressure on GOP leaders to act quickly to bring the bill up for a vote. If they fail to do so, she said, it is a “signal of the dissolution” of the discipline displayed by Republicans through the election season.
Pelosi said she was confident Democrats would sustain a presidential veto if the bill passes Congress. Polls indicate that Americans are generally supportive of legal abortion but that they back restrictions on the procedure late in pregnancy. A Quinnipiac University poll in November found that 60 percent of American voters favored a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, including 46 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of women.
The 22 women in the House GOP caucus are well aware that many of their male colleagues have earned the ire of Democrats and women’s rights groups for talking about rape and women’s rights. Abortion opponents saw the bill as an opportunity to consolidate gains as they pursue a strategy that is less about banning the procedure outright and more about dramatically reducing access. In the past four years, states have enacted 231 abortion restrictions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that supports abortion rights. The restrictions range from limiting the use of the abortion pill to imposing strict standards on facilities. Many are the subject of legal challenges by abortion rights groups.
At the same closed-door retreat two years ago, Republican pollsters implored GOP lawmakers to stop discussing rape on the campaign trail and on Capitol Hill. The warnings came after several candidates faced heat in 2012 — including former congressman Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who said a woman could terminate a pregnancy resulting from a “legitimate rape,” and Richard Mourdock, a GOP candidate for an Indiana Senate seat, who said that babies resulting from rape were a “gift from God.” As has become the norm in recent years, the March for Life was overwhelmingly young and religious as busloads of students arrived from across the country to rally on the Mall. But the collapse of support for a bill many marchers want passed didn’t seem to resonate.
Franks, who is an ardent antiabortion activist, has been known to take an aggressive stance on the issue in the past, often clashing with Democrats opposed to his proposals. But on Wednesday, he took a notably softer tone as he acknowledged the concerns of his colleagues. “We’ve been doing this so long that I don’t go up and down” with the political fluctuations, said Geri Nagle, a 71-year-old retiree from New Jersey. The politics, she said, “doesn’t affect me much. The crowds here show where people stand.”
“I’ve maintained an open heart, because I realize that all of the people involved have sincere perspectives and have knowledge and experiences and information that I don’t have,” Franks said. “So my heart is open. My desire here is not a political victory; it is to try to somehow be part of catalyzing an awakening in America to where we finally see the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what’s happening to them.” Michelle Boorstein, Sandhya Somashekhar, Sean Sullivan and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.