This Constituent Research Guide shows how 46 endangered U.S. House incumbents from crossover districts voted in the 117th Congress (2021-2022) and 118th Congress (2023-2024) on major roll calls concerning abortion and reproductive rights. Their ranks include 17 Republicans (names below marked by one asterisk) from districts carried by Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 and five Democrats (two asterisks) from districts won four years ago by Republican Donald Trump.
NV = Did Not Vote
Dash = Not Yet in Office
Scroll horizontally to view all columns.
| First Name | Last Name | 1. Federal | 2. Parental | 3. State Lines | 4. Criminalize | 5. Roe | 6. Control | 7. Contraception | 8. Women's | 9. Late-Term | 10. Military | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mary | Peltola** | D-1 | AK | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NV |
| Dave | Schweikert* | R-1 | AZ | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Juan | Ciscomani* | R-6 | AZ | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Raul | Grijalva | D-7 | AZ | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Debbie | Lesko | R-8 | AZ | NV | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Paul | Gosar | R-9 | AZ | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Kevin | Kiley | R-3 | CA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| John | Duarte* | R-13 | CA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | NO |
| David | Valadao* | R-22 | CA | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Mike | Garcia* | R-27 | CA | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Young | Kim* | R-40 | CA | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Ken | Calvert | R-41 | CA | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Michelle | Steel* | R-45 | CA | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Lauren | Boebert | R-3 | CO | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Yadira | Caraveo | D-8 | CO | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Jahana | Hayes | D-5 | CT | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Anna Paulina | Luna | R-13 | FL | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Maria | Salazar | R-27 | FL | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES |
| Mariannette | Miller-Meeks | R-1 | IA | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Zach | Nunn | R-3 | IA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Eric | Sorenson | D-17 | IL | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Frank | Mrvan | D-1 | IN | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Jared | Golden** | D-2 | ME | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| John | James | R-10 | MI | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Angie | Craig | D-2 | MN | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Ryan | Zinke | R-1 | MT | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Don | Davis | D-1 | NC | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Don | Bacon* | R-2 | NE | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES |
| Thomas | Kean Jr.* | R-7 | NJ | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Gabe | Vasquez | D-2 | NM | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Susie | Lee | D-3 | NV | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Nick | LaLota* | R-1 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Anthony | D'Esposito* | R-4 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Michael | Lawler* | R-17 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Patrick | Ryan | D-18 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Marc | Molinaro* | R-19 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Brandon | Williams* | R-22 | NY | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | NV |
| Greg | Landsman | D-1 | OH | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Marcy | Kaptur** | D-9 | OH | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Emila | Sykes | D-13 | OH | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Lori | Chavez-DeRemer* | R-5 | OR | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Brian | Fitzpatrick* | R-1 | PA | NO | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO |
| Matt | Cartwright** | D-8 | PA | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO |
| Jennifer | Kigggans* | R-2 | VA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| Marie | Perez** | D-3 | WA | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | YES | NO | NO |
| Derrick | Van Orden | R-3 | WI | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | NO | YES | YES |
| First Name | Last Name | 1. Federal | 2. Parental | 3. State Lines | 4. Criminalize | 5. Roe | 6. Control | 7. Contraception | 8. Women's | 9. Late-Term | 10. Military |
Issue 1: Writing Abortion Rights into Federal Law
Voting 218 for and 211 against, the House on Sept. 24, 2021, passed a bill (HR 3755) that would establish a right in federal law, with few exceptions, for women to receive abortions and for health-care providers to administer them. The bill was debated nine months before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned control over abortions to the states. The bill sought to quash restrictions that several states had placed on abortion services, with a special pushback against a Texas law outlawing abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. After the Dobbs ruling, Texas totally banned abortions except in extreme circumstances.
The bill would, in part, prohibit state governments from (1) withholding or unnecessarily delaying abortion procedures; (2) limiting a health-care provider’s ability to prescribe drugs; (3) denying telemedicine abortion services; (4) spreading false information about abortion procedures and reproductive rights; and (5) requiring patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits or disclose to authorities the reason for the abortion.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said the right to abortion in Texas “is under horrible threat by a shameful and unconstitutional law…that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. That is a law in defiance of the federal law [under Roe]. It turns private citizens into snitches to turn women in. That is reminiscent of the Third Reich. And if that sounds staggering, it is because it is.”
Opponent Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said: “This latest Democrat scheme would go against the wishes of the American people and make abortion on demand for any reason legal until the time of birth. It is clear to see that the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act is not about protecting the lives of unborn female babies. It is about handing the anti-unborn baby industry a victory it has sought for many years….”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it was shelved by a Republican filibuster.
Issue 2: Republican Bill on Criminalization & Parental Approval
Voting 209 for and 219 against, the House on July 15, 2022, refused to take up a Republican-sponsored bill that would replace a Democratic-sponsored bill (HR 8297, below) ensuring the right of minors to cross state lines to obtain a lawful abortion. Under the GOP bill, those transporting girls out-of-state for abortions would face criminal penalties if they disregard state law requiring the consent of a parent or guardian. Several states have such laws.
Had this GOP-sponsored “motion to recommit” prevailed, the House would have voted on whether to pass the Republican replacement bill named the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Mike Johnson, R-La., said: “A parent should be involved in the life of their child….When a state says a guardian or parent should be notified that their minor is seeking an abortion, that law ought to be respected and followed.”
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said: “We speak what we believe. That is what this legislation does, and that is what reproductive freedom is. It is to ensure that the GOP does not criminalize abortion in all 50 States.”
A yes vote was to adopt a Republican motion to amend the bill.
Issue 3: Crossing State Lines for Abortion Services
Voting 223 for and 205 against, the House on July 15, 2022, passed a bill (HR 8297) that would ensure the right to cross state lines to obtain a lawful abortion. The bill also would prevent the criminalization of doctors and nurses who provide abortion care to out-of-state women and girls, while protecting family members and others who help the individual cross state lines. In addition, the bill would prohibit states from denying out-of-state individuals access to abortion pills.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said: “Roe v. Wade wasn’t the beginning of women having abortions; it was the end of women dying from abortions….This bill is about freedom, and one of the most precious freedoms that we have is the freedom to travel from state to state in the United States of America….protected under the Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.
Opponent Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., called the bill “a deceptive ploy to circumvent the authority of states to set their own laws about abortion procedures or, more plainly, the procedures that violently end an unborn child’s life.” She said the bill would benefit child abusers who “transport minors across state lines to receive abortions after their abuse.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it was shelved.
Issue 4: Republican Bill to Criminalize Certain Abortions
Voting 209 for and 218 against, the House on July 15, 2022, refused to take up a bill offered by Republicans to replace a Democratic bill (HR 8296, below) that sought to write the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling into federal law. The GOP measure (HR 619) would require that fetuses appearing to have survived an abortion procedure receive the same level of medical care “as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health-care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including immediate hospitalization. Democrats said existing law already provides such protection. The GOP bill also would subject any doctor who “intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive” to prosecution for murder. Any health-care practitioner who is present for the procedure or has knowledge of it would face up to five years’ imprisonment if they failed to report the incident to law enforcement.
Had this GOP-sponsored “motion to recommit” prevailed, the House would have voted on whether to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (HR 619) rather than the Democratic bill.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., called it “stunning that Congress is wasting its time on legislation that is so out of touch with the people it represents. What we should be focusing on is helping women and protecting the innocent lives of babies….We are talking about children who have already been born. We are talking about infanticide.”
Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said: “While Republicans seek to punish and control women by criminalizing abortion nationwide, House Democrats will continue our fight to restore the right to abortion as the law of the land.”
A yes vote was to bring the GOP replacement bill to an up-or-down vote.
Issue 5: Writing Roe v. Wade into Federal Law
Voting 219 for and 210 against, the House on July 15, 2022, passed a bill (HR 8296) that would codify in federal law the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which guaranteed women in all states the constitutional right to abortion. The vote occurred 22 days after the court, in a 6-3 decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturned Roe on grounds that abortion access is not a constitutionally guaranteed right but the prerogative of each state to grant or deny. The Dobbs ruling upheld a Mississippi statute that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. By contrast, the Supreme Court in its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey held that fetuses usually do not become “viable” until 20-to-24 weeks after inception, and that abortions were legal up until that time.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Lois Frankel, D-Fla., said it was necessary to codify Roe because “Republicans across the country and in Congress are moving full steam ahead toward their dark and extreme goal of a nationwide abortion ban that will throw doctors into jail, force children to bear children, lead to tragic deaths and life-changing hardships for people in our country.”
Opponent Ben Cline, R-Va., said “no one has the right to end the life of an innocent human being. The government has a duty to protect that right to life. Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies have had their lives cut short. That is a tragedy and simply unacceptable, and I stand here for the sake of millions of children, for the sake of the integrity of our nation.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it was shelved.
Issue 6: Republican Plan for Over-the-Counter Birth Control
Voting 190 for and 234 against, the House on July 21, 2022, refused to accept a Republican-sponsored amendment requiring the Food and Drug Administration to give “priority review” to potentially allowing over-the-counter sale of birth control pills it deems safe for women at least 18 years old. However, emergency contraceptives such as Plan B would still require a prescription. Had this GOP-sponsored “motion to recommit” prevailed, the amendment would have been immediately added to the underlying bill (HR 8373, below) that sought to codify the right to contraception in federal law.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Sponsor Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, said: “Making birth control available over the counter would have a significant impact on women’s lives. [Democrats] give you a whole lot of lip service about supporting women. They claim that their policies, no matter how far outside of the mainstream, are the only way to support women. That is not true. I am proposing a solution today that the overwhelming majority of American women agree with….”
Opponent Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said: “The half-measures that Republicans are purporting to bring forward today do not establish a right to contraception, nor do they ensure that hostile state legislators can’t take away birth control in the future. Only the Right to Contraception Act ensures that.”
A yes vote was to adopt a Republican motion to amend the bill.
Issue 7: Writing Contraception Rights into Federal Law
Voting 228 for and 195 against, the House on July 21, 2022, passed a bill (HR 8373) that would codify as federal law multiple Supreme Court rulings that access to contraception is protected by constitutional provisions including a right to privacy based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The bill would establish a statutory right for women to obtain and doctors to prescribe contraceptives. It would enshrine in law the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which validated the constitutional right of married couples to use contraceptives, as well as other rulings by the court that recognized the right of non-married persons and minors to use contraceptives.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., said “threats from Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court to take away our right to contraception are not abstract….I am probably the first person ever to speak about using Plan B on the House floor and I know I am the first person in at least 35 years to talk about my period here….We should be talking about periods and birth control and the health care that millions of Americans need for our everyday lives because this is not a side issue that only affects some people. This is a kitchen-table issue.”
Opponent Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said the bill “jeopardizes constitutional rights of individuals and organizations…by forcing providers to prescribe various forms of contraception that violate their religious rights. We are a nation that upholds and values religious freedom, and this bill…flies in the face of individuals with religious liberty concerns” while providing “a back door for abortion service providers, like Planned Parenthood, to tap into more federal taxpayer dollars.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it was shelved.
Issue 8: Democrats’ Women’s Health Protection Act
Voting 212 for and 219 against, the House on Jan. 11, 2023, defeated a motion by Democrats that sought to replace HR 26 (below) with the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that passed the House but not the Senate in the preceding 117th Congress. The Democratic bill would establish a right in federal law for women to receive abortions and for health-care providers to administer them, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in June 2022 that returned control of abortions to the states.
The bill would, in part, prohibit state governments from (1) withholding or unnecessarily delaying abortion procedures; (2) limiting a health-care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs; (3) denying telemedicine abortion services; (4) spreading false information about abortion procedures and reproductive rights; and (5) requiring patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits or disclose to authorities the reason for the abortion.
Had this “motion to recommit” prevailed, the House would have voted on whether to pass the Democratic bill.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said: “If there is one thing [the 2022] election showed us it is that the American people believe strongly that every woman in this country should have the ability to make her own health-care decisions, including abortion. Sadly, however, if there is one thing this past week has shown us, it is that the House Republicans just don’t care at all about that.”
Opponent Ben Cline, R-Va., said that “contrary to House Democrats and the Biden administration, the American people overwhelmingly believe that babies who are born alive should be protected, that a baby born alive, even after an attempted abortion, should be afforded the same constitutional protections as every other American.”
A yes vote was to adopt a Democratic motion to amend the bill.
Issue 9: Criminalizing Late-Term Abortions
Voting 220 for and 210 against, the House on Jan. 11, 2023, passed a Republican-drafted bill (HR 26) that sought another level of protection for infants born as a result of failed late-term abortions. Democrats said existing federal law already protects such infants. The bill also would expand criminal liability for medical personnel who break the law while performing or witnessing such abortions.
Under the bill, health-care providers could face up to five years in prison if they failed to immediately transport to a hospital an infant with signs of life after an abortion attempt. The infant would have to receive the same level of medical care provided “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” The bill also would require medical practitioners or employees at hospitals, clinics or physician’s offices to report to law enforcement any violation they observed. And it would give the mother of the fetus a civil right of action against practitioners who fail to provide adequate care.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Supporter Mike Johnson, R-La., said: “Once again, House Republicans are eager to stand for the most vulnerable among us, the unborn. We are the party of life, and we are proud of it. There is no difference between an infant born alive after a failed abortion and an infant born into the arms of loving parents. Those two babies deserve to be treated with the same level of excellent medical care.”
Opponent Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., called the bill a “grotesque attempt to politicize abortion care and criminalize doctors. Politicians should not be in the business of mandating that women carry dangerous or unwanted pregnancies to term. They should stay out of the doctor’s office when Americans are exercising their fundamental right to decide when or if to have children.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Issue 10: Limiting Military Women’s Abortion Rights
The House on July 13, 2023, voted, 221 for and 213 against, to defund a Department of Defense policy bolstering the reproductive rights of servicewomen based in states that prohibit or sharply curtail access to abortion. Under the policy, servicewomen and family members can receive up to three weeks’ administrative leave and travel reimbursement when they find it necessary to travel to another state for an abortion. The defunding was included in an early version of the fiscal 2024 military budget (HR 2670) but later reversed.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con
Sponsor Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, said: “This illegal Biden-endorsed policy has no place in our military. We need not support the Biden administration’s radical and immoral pro-abortion agenda.”
Opponent Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., asked: “How am I supposed to recommend to young girls in my district that they should attend a service academy like I did when we know this amendment would mean they would be signing away their right to basic health care?”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.