Joe Heck Can't Hide His Real Record On Women's Issues

Washington, DC – Joe Heck has been campaigning to get the votes of women around the state of Nevada, but the reality is that Joe Heck does not represent all Nevada women. On funding Planned Parenthood, equal pay, and providing resources to domestic violence programs, Joe Heck has repeatedly voted NO. Just this weekend, Joe Heck openly admitted he voted to defund Planned Parenthood, including the life saving prevention and screening services the organization provides.

“Congressman Joe Heck has been visiting GOP women’s events across the state, but he can’t hide his real record on women’s issues,”

President of American Bridge 21st Century Jessica Mackler.” The truth is Joe Heck has turned his back on Nevada’s women. He opposes equal pay for equal work, a living wage for working families, and wouldn’t fund domestic violence prevention programs. Heck hasn’t supported women as their representative- why would they ever give him a promotion?”

Joe Heck: Bad For Women

Key Points:

In 2007, Heck voted against a bill that required mandatory health insurance coverage of cervical cancer vaccines for young women. Heck opposed the measure by appearing to blame cancer victims for their disease by saying “some victims practiced unsafe sex” and insisted he had “philosophical objections” to mandating HPV vaccine coverage. Heck even compared HPV vaccine to coddling “smokers who contract lung cancer.” In 2012, defended his 2007 vote by saying it had “nothing to do with women’s health issues” and claimed the vaccine “did not prevent cervical cancer” – a factually dubious claim.

Heck supported a 20-week abortion ban that lacked rape and incest exceptions because, his campaign manager claimed, “most rape victims do not wait five months to seek care.” The ban would allow the father to sue the doctor that performed the abortion and would imprison doctors who performed the procedure for up to two years.

Heck voted to allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds even when the mother’s life was in danger.

Heck co-sponsored so-called “personhood” legislation that would ban some types of birth control and in-vitro fertilization.

Heck voted four times to defund Planned Parenthood and said Planned Parenthood should stop performing abortions.

Heck opposed the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act because he claimed there were already “plenty of places” to get birth control. Heck also praised the Supreme Court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby. Before the Supreme Court’s decision, Heck voted for legislation that allowed employers to opt out of contraceptive coverage.

VACCINES

2007: Heck Voted Against Mandatory Coverage Of Vaccine For Cervical Cancer For Young Women

April 2007: Heck Voted Against Mandating “Most Insurance Providers” Make “A Cervical Cancer Vaccine Available To Young Women.” Heck, on April 13 and 19, 2007, voted against Senate Bill 409, which was a bill that would have mandated “most insurance providers” make “a cervical cancer vaccine available to young women.” According to the Associated Press, “A proposal requiring most insurance providers to make a cervical cancer vaccine available to young women was approved by an Assembly panel after it was combined with a separate measure mandating coverage for prostate cancer screenings. SB113, mandating the prostate screenings, was amended to include SB409, mandating the cervical vaccine availability, and was passed by the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee.” Senate Bill 409 was passed by both house of the legislature and was signed into law by the Governor on June 14, 2007. [Senate Bill 409,4/13/07 and 4/19/07; Associated Press, 5/17/07]

The Bill Required Insurance Companies To Cover The HPV Vaccine. According to the Las Vegas Sun, “‘While serving in the State Senate he voted against requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for HPV vaccinations.’ In April 2007, Heck voted against a bill that would have required insurance companies to cover a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV), a precursor to cervical cancer.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]

2007: Heck Claimed He Had “Philosophical Objections To Mandating Coverage” Of The HPV Vaccine

Patrick Coolican Op-Ed: In 2007, Heck Said He Had “Philosophical Objections To Mandating Coverage” Of The HPV Vaccine.In an Op-Ed in the Las Vegas Sun, J. Patrick Coolican wrote, “Heck, of Henderson, told a 2007 state Senate committee that he had ‘philosophical’ objections to mandating coverage of the vaccine because there were preventable risk factors, including multiple sex partners, that sometimes lead to HPV transmission and then cancer.” [Op-Ed – Las Vegas Sun, 9/24/08]

Heck Opposed Vaccine Mandatory Coverage Because “Some Victims Practiced Unsafe Sex”

Associated Press: Heck Opposed “Mandatory Coverage Of A Vaccine For A Sexually Transmitted Virus Because Some Victims Practiced Unsafe Sex.” According to the Associated Press, “Governing from the middle, however, would be a new feat for Heck, a Catholic conservative well known in Nevada for blasting overzealous government spending and pushing private sector solutions to health care. He also opposed mandatory coverage of a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus because some victims practiced unsafe sex.” [Associated Press, 11/11/10]

Critics Said Heck Was “Blaming Women Who Had Cervical Cancer”

Critics Said Heck Was “Blaming Women Who Had Cervical Cancer.” According to the Associated Press, “Heck’s critics said he was blaming women who had cervical cancer.” [Associated Press, 10/10/10]

2010: Heck Defended His Vote By Saying It Had “Nothing To Do With Women’s Health Issues” And Claimed The Vaccine “Did Not Prevent Cervical Cancer”

2010: Heck Claimed The HPV Vaccine Did Not Prevent Cervical Cancer

VIDEO: In October 2012, Heck Claimed That The HPV Vaccine Did Not Prevent Cervical Cancer Because It Only Prevented Two Strains Of The Human Papillomavirus. During the 2010 Congressional District 3 debates, Joe Heck said, “During 2010 Congressional District 3 debates, Joe Heck said, “Dina Titus: And let me remind you, in the legislature the kind of bills Heck worked on with the insurance companies were to deny you coverage by saying we would not support mandates to cover prostate exams or vaccines to prevent cervical cancer. Joe Heck: [inaudible] The fact is [inaudible] prostate cancer [inaudible] mandate that was not in accordance with the recommendations of the American College of Surgeons. They wanted a standard that was not in accordance with the American College of Surgeons. The vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine prevents infection of the human papillomavirus which may cause cervical cancer and currently only two strains of multiple strains.” [2010 Congressional District 3 debate, Uploaded To YouTube 10/12/10; 00:54 – 1:44]

Heck Claimed This Mandate Had “Nothing To Do With Women’s Health Issues”

Nevada Progressive Blog: Heck Claimed Mandating Insurance Companies Cover Contraception In Their Insurance Plans Had “Nothing To Do With Women’s Health Issues.” According to the Nevada Progressive Blog, “And no, Nevada, we’re not immune from this. In fact, none other than our own ‘Trust me, I’m a doctor!’ Joe Heck uttered these words when asked about insurance coverage of contraception: ‘The fact is this has nothing to do with women’s health issues.’” [Nevada Progressive Blog, 1/18/13]

2010: Heck Claimed The Mandate Was Not “In Accordance With The Recommendations Of The American College Of Surgeons”

VIDEO: In October 2010, Heck His Vote Was Defensive Because The Mandate Was Not “In Accordance With The Recommendations Of The American College Of Surgeons.” During 2010 Congressional District 3 debates, Joe Heck said, “Dina Titus: And let me remind you, in the legislature the kind of bills Heck worked on with the insurance companies were to deny you coverage by saying we would not support mandates to cover prostate exams or vaccines to prevent cervical cancer. Joe Heck: [inaudible] The fact is [inaudible] prostate cancer [inaudible] mandate that was not in accordance with the recommendations of the American College of Surgeons. They wanted a standard that was not in accordance with the American College of Surgeons. The vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. The vaccine prevents infection of the human papillomavirus which may cause cervical cancer and currently only two strains of multiple strains.” [2010 Congressional District 3 debate, Uploaded To YouTube 10/12/10; 00:54 – 1:44]

Heck Compared HPV Vaccine To Coddling “Smokers Who Contract Lung Cancer”

Heck Said HPV Vaccine Is Like Allowing Smokers To “Puff With Impunity.” According to an op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun by J. Patric Coolican, “Heck reiterated his point about forcing insurance companies or the government to provide a vaccine to smokers, thus allowing them to puff with impunity. ‘I wasn’t trying to say women are bringing this on themselves. I was saying, ‘Do you say to someone who’s smoking tobacco, we’re going to mandate the insurance company cover a vaccine for lung cancer, and then you can smoke with impunity?’” [J. Patrick Coolican op-ed, Las Vegas Sun, 9/24/08]

Patrick Coolican Op-Ed: Heck Compared The HPV Vaccine To A Potential Vaccine For Lung Cancer. According to an op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun by J. Patrick Coolican,“Heck, of Henderson, told a 2007 state Senate committee that he had ‘philosophical’ objections to mandating coverage of the vaccine because there were preventable risk factors, including multiple sex partners, that sometimes lead to HPV transmission and then cancer. Here’s what Heck said at the 2007 committee meeting: ‘I do have a bit of a philosophical issue with this vaccine in that this type of cancer is, ah, three of the major types of risk factors are behavioral for this type of cancer.’ He compared it to a vaccine for lung cancer. ‘I wonder if it opens the door that, should some great day we develop a vaccine for the type of cancer that’s caused by smoking, are we then going to mandate that everybody who smokes needs to have an insurance-paid or government-paid vaccine?’” [J. Patrick Coolican op-ed, Las Vegas Sun, 9/24/08]

J. Patrick Coolican Op-Ed: Heck Said THE HPV Mandate Could Lead To “Insurance-Paid Or Government-Paid” Vaccines For Smokers. According to an op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun by J. Patrick Coolican,“Heck, of Henderson, told a 2007 state Senate committee that he had ‘philosophical’ objections to mandating coverage of the vaccine because there were preventable risk factors, including multiple sex partners, that sometimes lead to HPV transmission and then cancer. Here’s what Heck said at the 2007 committee meeting: ‘I do have a bit of a philosophical issue with this vaccine in that this type of cancer is, ah, three of the major types of risk factors are behavioral for this type of cancer.’ He compared it to a vaccine for lung cancer. ‘I wonder if it opens the door that, should some great day we develop a vaccine for the type of cancer that’s caused by smoking, are we then going to mandate that everybody who smokes needs to have an insurance-paid or government-paid vaccine?’” [J. Patrick Coolican op-ed, Las Vegas Sun, 9/24/08]

IN 2012, HECK VOTED FOR 20-WEEK BAN THAT DID NOT CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST

Heck Claimed He Supported Exceptions For Life Of The Mother, Rape, Or Incest

2010: Heck Said He Opposed Abortion, But Believed “Exceptions Should Be Made To Save The Life Of A Mother Or In Documented Cases Of Rape Or Incest.” According to the Las Vegas Sun, “Both candidates also oppose abortion, but Heck believes exceptions should be made to save the life of a mother or in documented cases of rape or incest.” [Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/10]

Yet In 2012, He Voted To Criminalize Abortion In Washington D.C. “After 20 Weeks Even In Cases Of Rape, Incest And Fetal Abnormalities”

July 2012: Heck Voted To Criminalize Abortion In Washington D.C. “After 20 Weeks Even In Cases Of Rape, Incest And Fetal Abnormalities.” On July 21, 2012, Heck voted to pass House Resolution 3803, which was a bill that would have criminalized “abortions after 20 weeks even in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormalities.” According to Politico, “A majority of the House backed a bill to ban abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but the legislation still failed to get the votes needed to pass. Rep. Trent Franks’ ‘District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’ was considered under a procedure that requires two-thirds of the House to pass. The bill fell short of that level with a final vote of 220-154 — six Republicans voted against the bill and 17 Democrats voted for the measure […] The restriction would not apply in situations where the life of the mother was threatened but it would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks even in cases of rape, incest and fetal abnormalities. Doctors would face up to two years of jail time and fines for not complying with the law.” [House Resolution 3803, 7/31/12; Politico, 7/31/12]

The Heck-Supported Bill Allowed The Imprisonment Of D.C. Physicians For Up To Two Years…

The Bill Would Have Allowed D.C. Physicians Who Did Not Comply With The Anti-Choice Legislation To “Be Fined Or Imprisoned For Up To Two Years.” According to The Hill, “H.R. 3803 would criminalize abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Republicans say some research suggests fetuses feel pain at that point, though the science is inconclusive. D.C. physicians who disobey the law would be fined or imprisoned for up to two years.” [Hill, 7/27/12]

… Allowed The Father To Sue The “Doctor Or Other Personnel That Took Part In The Abortion” For Money

The Bill Would Have Allowed The “Father Of The Fetus” To Bring Lawsuit Against The “Offending Doctor Or Other Personnel That Took Part In The Abortion.” According to the Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum two-year jail sentence, fines or both. The measure prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban. A woman on whom an illegal abortion was performed or the father of the fetus would be granted standing to seek damages and attorneys’ fees from the offending doctor or other personnel that took part in the abortion. In cases where the woman is an unemancipated minor, the maternal grandmother of the fetus would have standing to commence a civil action. Defendants would be allowed to seek attorneys’ fees and damages against a woman who brings a civil case that is found to be frivolous and in bad faith. In addition, the woman or her spouse, parent or guardian, sibling, or current or former medical professional could seek injunctive relief against the abortion provider to prevent them from conducting future abortions in violation of the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports, 7/31/12]

Heck’s Tone-Deaf Response

2013: Heck’s Campaign Manager Said Heck Voting For A Bill That Banned Abortion After 20 Weeks With No Exception For Rape Was Okay Because “Most Rape Victims Do Not Wait Five Months To Seek Care.” According to the Las Vegas Sun, “‘They were fact-checked,’ said Mark Ciavola, Heck’s campaign manager. ‘They were debunked.’ […] Ciavola said, ‘The reason 3803 did not contain a rape exception is that it is universally accepted that most rape victims do not wait five months to seek care.’” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]

Heck’s Attempts To Refute Claims About The Bill

October 2012: Heck Called Claims That He Voted To Restrict Rape Victims’ Access To Abortion “Blatantly False.” According to the official campaign Twitter account of Congressman Joe Heck, “Oceguera: Heck voted to restrict rape victims’ access to abortion / Blatantly false. #Lie4 #nv03 #credibilitygap.” [Congressman Joe Heck, Official Campaign Twitter Account, 10/11/12]

October 2014: Heck Attempted To Refute Claims That He Would “Criminalize Abortion” In Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to the official campaign Twitter account of Congressman Joe Heck, “.@erinbilbray claims Heck would ‘criminalize abortion in cases of rape/incest.’ False in 2010, 2012 & today. Position is clear. #nv03 #Lie4.” [Congressman Joe Heck, Official Campaign Twitter Account, 10/17/14]

2011: HECK VOTED TO ALLOW HOSPITALS TO DENY PREGNANT WOMEN ABORTIVE CARE “EVEN IF AN ABORTION WERE NECESSARY TO SAVE HER LIFE”

October 2011: Heck Voted To Allow Hospitals To “Turn Away A Pregnant Woman Seeking Emergency Care Even If An Abortion Were Necessary To Save Her Life.” On October 16, 2011, Heck voted for H.R. 358, which was a bill that allowed “hospitals that oppose abortions on moral or religious grounds leeway to turn away a pregnant woman seeking emergency care even if an abortion were necessary to save her life.” According to the Washington Post, “The House voted to expand or reaffirm a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That 2010 law, when combined with Department of Health and Human Services regulations and an executive order by President Obama, imposes a ‘Hyde Amendment’ ban on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. This bill (HR 358) would add prohibitive language to the law that opponents said already was in place. The bill also would give hospitals that oppose abortions on moral or religious grounds leeway to turn away a pregnant woman seeking emergency care even if an abortion were necessary to save her life.” [House Vote 789, 10/13/11; H.R. 358, 10/13/11; Washington Post, 10/16/11]

Bill’s Opponents Said Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment.According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act’s limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act’s requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]

Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus.According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]

The Catholic Health Association, Which Supported The Overall Bill’s Goals, Said It Opposed Bill’s Changes To Emergency Medical Care Requirements.According to a letter from Catholic Health Association President and CEO Carol Keehan, reprinted in the Congressional Record, “The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) would like to express our continued support for the intent of your legislation, H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, to further ensure protection of the unborn and of providers’ conscience rights. We have had the opportunity to review your revised version of H.R. 358 and would like to share our concern regarding one specific modification to your legislation. Section 1303(f) regarding emergency services laws, including Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), now includes a reference to a new provision regarding provider nondiscrimination (Section 1303(g)). Your provider nondiscrimination language is similar to the conscience protections of the Weldon Amendment. CHA member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both EMTALA and the ‘Weldon Amendment,’ without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. Accordingly, CHA does not believe that there is a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to apply to EMTALA.” [Congressional Record, 10/13/11]

2011: Heck Voted To Potentially Allow Hospitals And Doctors To Refuse To Perform An Abortion When Needed To Save A Woman’s Life In A Medical Emergency. October 2011, Heck effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have ensured “that nothing in the [underlying] bill would exempt hospitals or medical providers from state or federal laws requiring they give care that would prevent the death of pregnant women with emergency medical conditions.” The underlying bill, according to Congressional Quarterly, included provisions that would have “prohibit[ed] any federal agency, state or local government that receives federal funding from discriminating against a ‘health care entity’ that refuses to receive training on how to perform abortions; provide such training; pay for, participate in, or perform abortions; or offer referrals for abortion services. The bill defines a ‘health care entity’ as an individual physician or other health care professional, hospital, provider-sponsored organization, health maintenance organization, insurance plan, or any other health care facility, organization or plan.” The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be reported back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 173 to 249. The underlying bill passed the House; however, the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 788, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/13/11; Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]

Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Language Protecting A Hospital Or Doctor’s Refusal To Perform An Abortion Could Override Existing Health Providers Obligation To Provide Emergency Medical Treatment.According to Congressional Quarterly, opponents of the bill argued that “[t]his bill goes far beyond this simply prohibiting federal funding for abortion. It will seriously discourage providers from covering abortion services. The bill potentially takes away the Affordable Care act’s limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to abortion by means of a legal and medically appropriate service. And among its most disturbing provisions, the bill would upend the Affordable Care act’s requirement that health care providers remain obligated to provide emergency services as required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Intentionally or unintentionally, the bill language is ambiguous.” [Congressional Quarterly, 10/10/11]

Underlying Bill’s Opponents Said Its Supporters Had Misrepresented Current Law, Saying Existing “Unborn Child” Language Served To Require Hospitals To Provide Emergency Care For Health Threats To Fetus.According to the dissenting views included in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s report on the legislation, “Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman’s ‘‘unborn child.’’ This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to ‘unborn child’ in the definition of ‘emergency medical condition’ is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an ‘emergency medical condition’ if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to ‘unborn child’ in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.” [House Report 112-40, Part 1, 3/17/11]

Criticism Of Legislation

Talking Points Memo Headline: “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion” [Talking Points Memo, 2/4/11]

Seema Jilani Op-Ed: This “Atrocious Bill” Would Have Deeply Impacted “Pregnant Women Of Lower Socioeconomic Status.” In an Op-Ed in the Guardian, Seema Jilani wrote, “Amid these dire circumstances, House Republicans passed an atrocious bill this month that would deeply impact pregnant women of lower socioeconomic status. Currently, hospitals receiving federal funds must provide emergency healthcare, including abortions, which can sometimes be life saving for the mother. The deceptively named Protect Life Act – which does anything but – would permit hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to perform an emergency abortion, even if a woman’s life was at stake. A vicious attack on the most basic right to life, HR 358 ambushes poor pregnant women into a bleak decision: either deliver an unwanted baby and raise the child in an unstable home, or have an unsafe abortion that could jeopardise your life. Will the GOP, our bastion of God-sanctioned moral righteousness, also be providing discounts on rusty coat hangers to further hasten the death of pregnant women?” [Op-Ed – Guardian, 10/24/11]

Seema Jilani Op-Ed: This “Atrocious Bill” Was A “Vicious Attack On The Most Basic Right To Life.” In an Op-Ed in the Guardian, Seema Jilani wrote, “Amid these dire circumstances, House Republicans passed an atrocious bill this month that would deeply impact pregnant women of lower socioeconomic status. Currently, hospitals receiving federal funds must provide emergency healthcare, including abortions, which can sometimes be life saving for the mother. The deceptively named Protect Life Act – which does anything but – would permit hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to perform an emergency abortion, even if a woman’s life was at stake. A vicious attack on the most basic right to life, HR 358 ambushes poor pregnant women into a bleak decision: either deliver an unwanted baby and raise the child in an unstable home, or have an unsafe abortion that could jeopardise your life. Will the GOP, our bastion of God-sanctioned moral righteousness, also be providing discounts on rusty coat hangers to further hasten the death of pregnant women?” [Op-Ed – Guardian, 10/24/11]

Seema Jilani Op-Ed: This “Atrocious Bill” Ambushed Poor Pregnant Women Into A “Bleak Decision: Either Deliver An Unwanted Baby And Raise The Child In An Unstable Home, Or Have An Unsafe Abortion That Could Jeopardise Your Life.” In an Op-Ed in the Guardian, Seema Jilani wrote, “Amid these dire circumstances, House Republicans passed an atrocious bill this month that would deeply impact pregnant women of lower socioeconomic status. Currently, hospitals receiving federal funds must provide emergency healthcare, including abortions, which can sometimes be life saving for the mother. The deceptively named Protect Life Act – which does anything but – would permit hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to perform an emergency abortion, even if a woman’s life was at stake. A vicious attack on the most basic right to life, HR 358 ambushes poor pregnant women into a bleak decision: either deliver an unwanted baby and raise the child in an unstable home, or have an unsafe abortion that could jeopardise your life. Will the GOP, our bastion of God-sanctioned moral righteousness, also be providing discounts on rusty coat hangers to further hasten the death of pregnant women?” [Op-Ed – Guardian, 10/24/11]

NARAL President Nancy Keenan Said The Bill Was “Threatening The Lives Of Women Nationwide.” According to testimony from NARAL President Nancy Keenan on the bill, “Threatening the lives of women nationwide, the Pitts bill allows hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care, or to refer a patient to a hospital that will, even when a woman’s life is in critical danger. With regard to abortion care, the legislation overrides the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) by allowing hospitals to refuse services, thereby undermining a key provision in federal law that is meant to protect patients.” [Testimony – NARAL President Nancy Keenan, 2/9/11]

OPPOSED EFFORTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL

2012: Heck Voted Against Requiring All Health Providers To Provide Birth Control

VIDEO: In February 2012, In Explaining His Vote Against Requiring All Health Providers To Provide Birth Control, Heck Said There Were “Plenty Of Places Where Women” Could Go To Get Birth Control.” Heck, during a town hall in Henderson, said, “As a physician, I know that there’s medical reasons and medical benefits to being on birth control. The issue is that there are plenty of places where women can pay birth control. So this is an issue of: what’s the role of the federal government.” [Heck Tracking Footage – Henderson Community Center, 2/21/12]

2012: In Defending His Opposition To The Mandate On Insurance Providers To Provide Birth Control, Heck Said There Were “Plenty Of Places Where Women Can Pay [For] Birth Control”

VIDEO: In 2012, Heck Said “The Issue We Had” With Mandating All Insurance Companies Should Provide Birth Control Was That Mandates Increase The Cost Of Insurance. Heck, at a Hispanics in Politics event at Dona Maria’s in Las Vegas, said, “I have no issues with birth control. The issue that we had – or some had – back in Washington at the time was whether or not every insurance policy should be mandated to provide specific [inaudible. Forms?] free of charge. I’ve long had a history of opposing mandates on insurance policies because they increase the cost of insurance.” [Heck Tracking Footage – Hispanics in Politics Las Vegas, 4/4/12]

VIDEO: In 2012, Heck Said He Did Not Think “Every Insurance Company Should Be Mandated To Provide” Birth Control “Free Of Charge.” Heck, at a Hispanics in Politics event at Dona Maria’s in Las Vegas, said, “That’s a personal issue that a female needs to make, whether or not she wants to use birth control. Not my decision. But I don’t think every insurance company should be mandated to provide it, free of charge.” [Heck Tracking Footage – Hispanics in Politics Las Vegas, 4/4/12]

2013: Contraception Mandate Opt-Out

2013: Heck Voted To Add A Provision Allowing Employers To Opt-Out For A Year From The ACA’s Requirement That Employer-Provided Health Insurance Cover Women’s Preventative Care, Including Contraception, To Legislation That Would Have Prevented A Government Shutdown. In September 2013, Heck voted to amend a proposed continuing appropriations resolution that would have funded the federal government through November 15, 2013, by adding a provision that, according to CNN, was a “so-called ‘conscience clause,’” which “would allow employers and insurers to opt out of preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current Obamacare rules. […] With this move, House Republican leaders would give any employer or group health plan the ability to opt out of contraception coverage for the next year.” The other provisions, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “delay[ed] for one year implementation of any provision of the 2010 health care overhaul that would take effect between Oct. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2014, including the individual mandate and the imposition or increase of specified taxes and fees, […] bar[red] appropriations and transfers from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Fund, […] [and] set the expiration date for the continuing appropriations to Dec. 15, 2013.” The vote was on a motion to concur, with a further amendment, to the Senate’s amendment to the continuing resolution that the House had passed 10 days earlier. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 231 to 192. The Senate later rejected the House’s proposed amendment. [House Vote 498, 9/29/13; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 59; Congressional Quarterly, 9/29/13; CNN, 9/28/13]

2014: Hobby Lobby

2014: Heck Said That The Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Decision Was “Right” To “Refuse To Provide Certain Types Of Birth Control For Employees.” According to The Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Democrats, however, issued a chart providing point-by-point rebuttal of Heck’s announcement video, reminding voters of a vote that led to a government shutdown in 2013, opposing an increase in the minimum wage, calling Social Security a ‘pyramid scheme,’ a vote against President Barack Obama’s executive order deferring deportations for DREAMers, and calling the controversial Supreme Court decision that held that closely held private corporations such as Hobby Lobby have a free exercise of religion right to refuse to provide certain types of birth control for employees.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/6/15]

Heck Called Hobby Lobby A “Reasonable Decision By The Supreme Court.” According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “On another topic, Heck said he agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday in the Hobby Lobby case. The high court said businesses that are family owned or closely held don’t have to provide health care coverage for birth control because the companies have religious objections. Heck said that the ruling was narrowly written to accommodate religious beliefs that life starts at conception and that he didn’t believe it should be broadly interpreted to apply to companies that aren’t closely held. ‘I think it’s a reasonable decision by the Supreme Court,’ said Heck, who is an emergency room physician.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/2/14]

HECK CO-SPONSORED A FEDERAL PERSONHOOD LAW

2011: Heck Co-Sponsored The Life At Conception Act. According to Congress.Gov, “Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” The bill was introduced in the House on 1/20/11. No subsequent action was taken. [Congressional Record, 1/20/11; Congressional Record, H.R. 347]

The Bill Declared That Life Began At “The Moment Of Fertilization, Cloning, Or Other Moment At Which An Individual Comes Into Being.” According to Congress.Gov, “Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” The bill was introduced in the House on 1/20/11. No subsequent action was taken. [Congressional Record, 1/20/11; Congressional Record, H.R. 347]

Personhood Would Ban Some Types Of Birth Control And In-Vitro Fertilization

New York Times: Personhood Amendments “Would Essentially Deem Abortion And Some Types Of Birth Control Murder.” According to the New York Times, “The Democratic offensive is built around statements by Mr. Romney that some have linked to a proposed constitutional amendment in Mississippi, which among other things would effectively make illegal certain types of birth control. Under the measure, known as a ‘personhood’ amendment, a fertilized human egg would be declared to be a legal person. The amendment, which would essentially deem abortion and some types of birth control murder, represents perhaps the furthest front in the anti-abortion movement.” [New York Times, 11/3/11]

Personhood Amendments Prohibited Some Common Forms Of Birth Control, Including IUD’s And Morning-After Pills. According to the New York Times, “Specifically, personhood amendments bar some forms of birth control that prevent fertilized eggs from being implanted in a uterus, like IUD’s and ‘morning-after pills.’” [New York Times, 11/3/11]

HECK VOTED AT LEAST FIVE TIMES TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

February, 2011: Heck Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In February 2011, Heck voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “prohibit[ed] any funds in the bill from being made available to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The underlying bill combined the Defense Appropriations Act and the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The amendment was approved by the House by a vote of 240 to 185. The House approved the underlying bill and sent it to the Senate, which substituted different legislation into the bill. [House Vote 93, 2/18/11; Congressional Quarterly, 2/18/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]

April, 2011: Heck Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In April 2011, Heck voted for a resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “bar[red] the use of funds made available in the bill to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or its affiliates.” The vote was on a concurrent resolution to order the House clerk to make a correction in the enrollment of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011 by inserting the proposed amendment. The House adopted the resolution by a vote of 241 to 185, and it was then sent to the Senate, which rejected it. [House Vote 271, 4/14/11; Congressional Quarterly, 4/14/11; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 36]

VIDEO: In October 2012, Heck Said “I Do Not Believe In Funding Planned Parenthood.” Heck, on October 15, 2012, at Congregation Ner Tamid in Las Vegas, said, “I don’t believe that federal dollars should go to pay for abortion, so therefore, [interrupted] if I could finish the answer – so that’s why I do not believe in funding Planned Parenthood. Until they can show that there’s no federal dollars that they receive going to fund abortions.” [Heck Tracking Footage – Las Vegas Ner Tamid Temple, 10/15/12]

September, 2013: Heck Had “Voted To Strip The Nonprofit Group Planned Parenthood Of Its Federal Funding.” According to the Las Vegas Sun, “‘He has wasted taxpayer dollars by continuing to vote … to defund Planned Parenthood.’ Although a vote does not require any direct spending, it is true that Heck has voted to strip the nonprofit group Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. ‘His vote on that bill is consistent with his position that taxpayer funds should not go to pay for abortions,’ said Ciavola, who noted that the nationwide reproductive health organization counts abortions among the services it provides.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]

2013: Heck Spokesman Mark Ciavola Said That Heck’s Vote To Defund Planned Parenthood Was “Consistent With His Position That Taxpayer Funds Should Not Go To Pay For Abortions.” According to the Las Vegas Sun, “‘He has wasted taxpayer dollars by continuing to vote … to defund Planned Parenthood.’ Although a vote does not require any direct spending, it is true that Heck has voted to strip the nonprofit group Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. ‘His vote on that bill is consistent with his position that taxpayer funds should not go to pay for abortions,’ said Ciavola, who noted that the nationwide reproductive health organization counts abortions among the services it provides.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]

September, 2015: Heck Voted To Strip “$450 Million In Federal Funds” From Planned Parenthood. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Planned Parenthood would be blocked from receiving federal funds for the next year under legislation approved last week by the House largely along party lines […] Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million in federal funds annually. The Republican bill would shift those funds that go to 700 Planned Parenthood clinics to an estimated 1,300 other community health centers across the country […] Reps. Joe Heck, Mark Amodei and Cresent Hardy, all R-Nev., voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., voted to support the organization.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/19/15]

The Heck-Supported Bill Would “Shift” The Funding To “An Estimated 1,300 Other Community Health Centers Across The Country.”According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Planned Parenthood would be blocked from receiving federal funds for the next year under legislation approved last week by the House largely along party lines […] Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million in federal funds annually. The Republican bill would shift those funds that go to 700 Planned Parenthood clinics to an estimated 1,300 other community health centers across the country […] Reps. Joe Heck, Mark Amodei and Cresent Hardy, all R-Nev., voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., voted to support the organization.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/19/15]

2015: Heck Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood For One Year Unless It Ceased Offering Abortion Services. In September 2015, Heck voted for defunding Planned Parenthood for one year. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have “bar[red], for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. As amended, the bill would effectively redirect funds from Planned Parenthood to the community health center program; specifically, it would appropriate $235 million for community health centers, in addition to any other funds available to the program.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 241 to 187. The Senate has not yet acted on the legislation. [House Vote 505, 9/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3134]

Planned Parenthood Was Under Investigation By Several House Committees Over Videos Allegedly Showing Planned Parenthood Breaking Fetal Tissue Regulations.According to MSNBC, “Several House committees are investigating Planned Parenthood after the release of secretly-recorded videos from an anti-abortion group, showing Planned Parenthood employees and current and former employees of a fetal tissue procurement firm. The group behind them says they show Planned Parenthood breaking laws regulating fetal tissue donation for the purpose of medical research – specifically, profiting off the tissue and altering procedures to obtain intact parts – which Planned Parenthood denies. None of the federal funding in question goes to abortion or to fetal tissue donation programs, although the National Institutes of Health does fund research on fetal tissue.” [MSNBC, 9/18/15]

VOTED AGAINST THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

2013: Heck Effectively Voted Against Considering The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Over Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In April 2013, Heck effectively voted to block House consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The vote was on ordering the previous question – and preventing further amendment of – the proposed rule governing House consideration of a bill concerning the National Labor Relations Board. Because the un-amended rule did not permit consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the effect of the House’s 226 to 192 vote to order the previous question on the rule was to block House consideration of Paycheck Fairness Act for the time being. [House Vote 97, 4/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/11/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; “The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means,” House Rules Committee Minority Staff Memo, 3/18/10]

2014: Heck Effectively Voted Against A Valid-For-Three-Months-Only Version Of The Paycheck Fairness Act, Which Would Make It Easier For Women To Successfully Sue Their Employers For Pay Discrimination, And Increase Employer Penalties In Such Cases. In September 2014, Heck effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have added “the text of a measure (HR 377) to tighten prohibitions on pay discrimination based on sex.” Specifically, it would have added the Paycheck Fairness Act, which according to the Congressional Research Service, would “increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to men and women for ‘equal work,’ and would add programs for training, research, technical assistance, and pay equity employer recognition awards. The legislation would also make it more difficult for employers to avoid [Equal Pay Act] EPA liability, and proposed safeguards would protect employees from retaliation for making inquiries or disclosures concerning employee wages and for filing a charge or participating in any manner in EPA proceedings. In short, while this legislation would adhere to current equal work standards of the EPA, it would reform the procedures and remedies for enforcing the law.” The underlying bill funded the government through December 11, 2014; and the proposed amendment stated that the equal pay provisions would be in effect only through that date. The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill and report it back with the specified amendment; the House rejected the motion by a vote of 199 to 228. [House Vote 508,9/17/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/17/14; H.R. 377, 1/23/13; CRS Report #RL31867, 11/22/13; H.J.Res. 124, 9/17/14; Congressional Record, 9/17/14]

2007: HECK VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR A RAPE CRISIS CENTER

June 2007: Heck Voted Against $250,000 For The “Rape Crisis Center In Southern Nevada To Expand The Child Assault Prevention Program.” On June 4, 2007, Heck voted against Senate Bill 579, which was an appropriations bill that provided “$250,000 to the Rape Crisis Center in southern Nevada to expand the Child Assault Prevention program.” According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, “To provide additional social services to Nevadans, S.B. 579 appropriates: • $250,000 to the Rape Crisis Center in southern Nevada to expand the Child Assault Prevention program;” Assembly Bill 579 was passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the Governor on June 14, 2007. [Assembly Bill 579, Legislative Counsel Bureau, 6/4/07]

Heck Claimed He Voted Against The Bill Because He “Did Not Have Time To Read” It

Heck Claimed He Voted Against The Bill Because It Was Introduced Late And He “Did Not Have Time To Read” It. According to the Las Vegas Sun, “Heck’s campaign said he voted against the bill because it was introduced only a few hours before the Legislature ended, and he didn’t have time to read the bill.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/1/13]

He Was Attacked For The Vote

2012: Heck Hit With Attack Ads Due To His Vote Against A Rape Crisis Center And Against Money To Help Victims Of Domestic Violence. According to the New York Times, “‘Once we get back, those that do get re-elected will all be commiserating about all the negative ads,’ said Representative Joe Heck of Nevada, a Republican who faced ads accusing him of voting against a rape crisis center and against money to help victims of domestic violence, among other things. ‘And that will start the groundswell for reform.’” [New York Times, 10/24/12]

VOTED AGAINST WOMEN’S EDUCATION FUNDING

2007: Heck Voted Against Nearly A Million Dollars In Funding For Women’s Education And Women’s Education Programs

June 2007: Heck Voted Against $400,000 In Funds For The “National Education For Women’s Leadership Program.” On June 5, 2007, Heck voted against Assembly Bill 629, which was a bill that provided $400,000 to the “National Education for Women’s Leadership Program.” According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, “Assembly Bill 629 contains supplemental appropriations to increase educational opportunities and services. The bill appropriates: • $400,000 to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada and the National Education for Women’s Leadership Program;” Assembly Bill 629 was passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the Governor on June 13, 2007. [Assembly Bill 629, Legislative Counsel Bureau, 6/5/07]

#Women'sIssues

Published: Aug 23, 2016