Elise Stefanik On Abortion
Stefanik Supported National Abortion Bans
Stefanik Touted Efforts By Republicans To Introduce A National Abortion Ban
Stefanik Touted Efforts By Republicans To Introduce A National Abortion Ban. According to the Washington Examiner, “House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) signaled on Tuesday that congressional Republicans will begin the process of introducing a 15-week federal abortion ban. Republicans, both in Congress and on the campaign trail, have been debating the issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, and Stefanik’s speech sets a marker for the discussion for the 2024 election cycle. The right to life ‘is fundamental to human rights and the American dream,’ Stefanik said during a Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America event celebrating the anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.” [Washington Examiner, 6/20/23]
2022: Stefanik Co-Sponsored A National Abortion Ban
2022: Stefanik Co-Sponsored Legislation Which Would Ban Abortions Nationwide After The 15th Week Of Pregnancy. According to North Country Public Radio, “Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is a co-sponsor of a new bill that would ban abortions nationwide after the 15th week of pregnancy. Republicans introduced the bill on Tuesday. It contains exceptions for rape, incest, and life-threatening physical conditions, but does not make exceptions for ‘psychological or emotional conditions.’ At a press conference in Washington, Republican leaders did not commit to bringing the bill to a vote if they take over the House majority. According to The Hill, Stefanik said the bill is ‘something that we’ll discuss with a majority.’” [North Country Public Radio, 9/16/22]
Stefanik Voted At Least Twice For A National 20-Week Abortion Ban
2017: Stefanik Voted For Legislation To Ban Abortion Nationally After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy. In October 2017, Stefanik voted for legislation banning abortion after the fetus is 20-weeks old. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later and would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. It would provide exceptions for cases in which the woman’s life is in danger as well as for pregnancies that are a result of rape for pregnancies that are a result of rape against an adult woman, if the woman received counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. An exception would be provided for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor if the rape or incest had been previously reported to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The bill would require a second doctor trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present for abortions where the fetus has the ‘potential’ to survive outside the womb.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 237 to 189. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 549, 10/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
2015: Stefanik Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions Nationally After 20 Weeks Gestation. In May 2015, Stefanik voted for a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and would impose criminal penalties on doctors that violated the ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, “prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later and would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. It would provide exceptions for cases in which the woman’s life is in danger as well as for pregnancies that are a result of rape if, as amended, for pregnancies that are a result of rape against an adult woman, the woman received counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. An exception would be provided for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor if the rape or incest had been previously reported to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. As amended, the bill would require a second doctor trained in neonatal resuscitation to be present for abortions where the fetus has the ‘potential’ to survive outside the womb, and, if the fetus is born alive, the bill would require that the infant be provided medical care and immediately be transported and admitted to a hospital. As amended, women wishing to have abortions under the bill’s exceptions would need to sign (along with the doctor and a witness) an informed consent authorization form detailing the age of the fetus and stating that, if born alive, would be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital.” The vote was on passage and the House passed the bill 242 to 184. Cloture on the motion to proceed on the bill was blocked in the Senate. [House Vote 223, 5/13/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/13/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
Ninety-Nine Percent Of Abortions Were Before 21 Weeks And Those After Were Usually Due To Complex Situations
Ninety-Nine Percent Of Abortions Were Before 21 Weeks And Those After Were Usually Due To Complex Situations. According to Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances. For example, severe fetal anomalies and serious risks to the woman’s health — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.” [Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Accessed 10/11/17]
The Bill Would Sentence Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban
The Bill Would Sentence Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both. It prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however, either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
Stefanik At Least Twice Effectively Voted Against Exceptions To Abortion Bans If The Health Of The Mother Was In Danger
2017: Stefanik Effectively Voted Against Allowing An Exception For The Health Of The Mother From A Federal Abortion Ban. In October 2017, Stefanik effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “add[ed] an exception to the 20-week abortion ban for abortions necessary to save the health of the pregnant woman.” The underlying legislation was a 20-week abortion ban. The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 187 to 238. [House Vote 548, 10/3/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/3/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
2015: Stefanik Effectively Voted Against Allowing An Exception To A Federal Abortion Ban If The Health Of The Woman Was In Danger. In May 2015, Stefanik effectively voted against an exception to a 20-week abortion ban for when the life of the pregnant woman was at risk. According to the Congressional Quarterly, the legislation was a motion to “recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to report back immediately with an amendment that would add an exception to the 20-week abortion ban for abortions necessary to save the health of the pregnant woman.” The larger legislation was HR 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have prohibited “an abortion from being performed if the probably post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater” except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest if the woman had had counseling and had reported the incident. The vote was on a motion to recommit with instructions and the House rejected the motion 181 to 246. H.R. 36 passed the House on May 13, 2015 in a vote 242 to 184. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 222, 5/13/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/13/15; Congress.gov, 5/13/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
Stefanik Supported Overturning Of Roe v. Wade
2022: Stefanik Applauded The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade
2022: Stefanik On The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade: “We Applaud This Historic Ruling, Which Will Save Countless Innocent Lives.” According to Stefanik’s press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “Today, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23), House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (LA-01), and House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (NY-21) issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: ‘Every unborn child is precious, extraordinary, and worthy of protection. We applaud this historic ruling, which will save countless innocent lives.” [Rep. Elise Stefanik accessed via the Wayback Machine, 6/24/22]
Stefanik: “The Supreme Court Is Right To Return The Power To Protect The Unborn To The People’s Elected Representatives In Congress And The States.” According to Stefanik’s press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “The Supreme Court is right to return the power to protect the unborn to the people’s elected representatives in Congress and the states. In the days and weeks following this decision, we must work to continue to reject extreme policies that seek to allow late-term abortions and taxpayer dollars to fund these elective procedures.” [Rep. Elise Stefanik accessed via the Wayback Machine, 6/24/22]
2021: Stefanik Signed Onto The Amicus Brief Backing Mississippi’s Challenge To Roe v. Wade
2021: Stefanik Signed Onto The Amicus Brief Backing Mississippi’s Challenge To Roe v. Wade. According to Stefanik’s press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has signed a Congressional Member Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), led by Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) and co-signed by several House Republican Members, urging SCOTUS to uphold the constitutionality of pre-viability restrictions on abortion in Mississippi State law, or return the case to the lower courts for full consideration.” [Rep. Elise Stefanik, 7/29/21]
Stefanik On The Amicus Brief: “I Am Proud To Join My House And Senate Colleagues In Sending This Amicus Brief To Stand Up For The Unborn And Give States The Clarity They Deserve.” According to Stefanik’s press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “‘The standard for viability through the eyes of the Supreme Court remains unclear. This allows lower Courts to interpret the viability standard differently, negatively impacting states’ ability to determine their own abortion regulations,’ said Congresswoman Stefanik. ‘The vast majority of Americans do not support abortion after the first three months of pregnancy. I am proud to join my House and Senate colleagues in sending this amicus brief to stand up for the unborn and give states the clarity they deserve.’” [Rep. Elise Stefanik, 7/29/21]
Elise Stefanik And January 6 & Democracy
Stefanik Supported Trump’s Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election
Stefanik Voted To Overturn The 2020 Election By Objecting To Pennsylvania’s Electoral College
2021: Stefanik Voted For Objecting To Pennsylvania’s Vote Count From The November 2020 Elections. In January 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Stefanik voted for an “objection to the counting of electoral votes from the state of Pennsylvania during the joint session of Congress, on the grounds that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.” The vote was on agreeing to the objection. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 138-282. [House Vote 11, 1/7/21; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/21]
Stefanik Signed OnTo An Amicus Brief Asking The Supreme Court To Overturn The 2020 Election Results
Stefanik Onto An Amicus Brief In Texas’ Case Into Voting In the 2020 Election. According to Stefanik’s press release accessed via the Wayback Machine, “Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has signed onto an amicus brief requesting a lawsuit be brought to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of Texas. ‘The amicus brief that was signed by over 100 House Republican Members today is about protecting our Constitution,’ said Congresswoman Stefanik. ‘The Constitution is clear; Election Officials and State Executives cannot change the people’s presidential election process without the state legislature approving it. Additionally, it is unconstitutional to refuse to check signatures on mail-in ballots if the state law explicitly states that they must be checked. We are requesting that the Supreme Court carefully review the lawsuit and provide clarity to the American People, who are rightfully concerned about both the unconstitutional overreach from certain state officials and the integrity of the Presidential election.’” [Rep. Elise Stefanik accessed via the Wayback Machine, 12/10/20]
The Lawsuit Was A Long-Shot Bid To Overturn The 2020 Election Results For Trump. According to Reuters, “President Donald Trump and 17 U.S. states on Wednesday threw their support behind a long-shot lawsuit by Texas seeking to overturn his election loss by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the voting results in four states. Trump, defeated by President-elect Joe Biden in the Nov. 3 election, filed a motion with the court asking the nine justices to let him intervene and become a plaintiff in the suit filed on Tuesday by Republican-governed Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” [Reuters, 12/9/20]
Stefanik Echoed Trump’s Sympathies For The January 6 Rioters
Stefanik Called January 6 Rioters “Hostages,” Echoing Trump
Stefanik Called January 6 Rioters “Hostages.” According to CNN, “GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik on Sunday echoed Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump as she referred to those sentenced to prison for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol as ‘hostages.’ ‘I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages. I have concerns, we have a role in Congress of oversight over our treatment of prisoners, and I believe we’re seeing the weaponization of the federal government against not just President Trump, but we’re seeing it against conservatives,’ the New York Republican said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’” [CNN, 1/7/24]
November 2023: Trump Called Those Arrested For Attacking The Capitol On January 6 “Hostages.” According to The Hill, “Former President Trump on Thursday referred to those jailed over their actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol as ‘hostages’ during a rally with supporters in Texas. Trump walked on stage at a Houston rally to Lee Greenwood’s ‘God Bless the USA’ as he typically does. But when it concluded, a song in which Trump collaborated with a chorus of inmates detained on charges related to the Jan. 6 insurrection began to play, and the former president stood saluting. ‘Well, thank you very much, and you know what that was,’ he said to open the rally. ‘I call them the ‘J-6 hostages,’ not prisoners. I call them the hostages, what’s happened. And you know, it’s a shame.’” [The Hill, 11/2/23]
Stefanik Would Not Commit To Certifying The 2024 Presidential Election Results
Stefanik Would Not Commit To Certifying The 2024 Presidential Election Results
Stefanik Would Not Commit To Certifying The 2024 Presidential Election Results. According to NBC News, “Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., on Sunday wouldn’t commit to certifying the 2024 election results during an interview on NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press.’ While interviewing Stefanik, who serves in House Republican leadership, host Kristen Welker asked, ‘Would you vote to certify, and will you vote to certify, the results of the 2024 election no matter what they show?’ Stefanik, who has boosted former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, said that she did not vote to certify the 2020 results in the state of Pennsylvania and several other states because there were ‘unconstitutional acts circumventing the state legislature and unilaterally changing election law.’” [NBC News, 1/7/24]
Stefanik Said She Would Not Have Certified The 2020 Election Results
Stefanik Said She Would Not Have Certified The 2020 Election Results, Said “I Would Not Have Done What Mike Pence Did. I Don’t Think That Was The Right Approach.” According to the Hill, “House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said that she would not have allowed 2020 election results to be certified on Jan. 6, 2021 if she was in former Vice President Mike Pence’s position. ‘I would not have done what Mike Pence did. I don’t think that was the right approach,’ Stefanik said on CNN Thursday evening. ‘I specifically stand by what I said on the House floor.’” [The Hill, 2/9/24]
Elise Stefanik On The Affordable Care Act
Stefanik Voted For The American Health Care Act
Stefanik Voted For The American Health Care Act, Which Repealed Parts Of The Affordable Care Act
2017: Stefanik Voted For The American Health Care Act, Which Repealed Parts Of The Affordable Care Act. In May 2017, Stefanik voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. The overall legislation would have in part, also according to Congressional Quarterly, “ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law’s joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. […] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
The American Health Care Act Would Have Resulted In 23 Million Fewer Americans With Health Insurance By 2026 By Repealing Parts Of The Affordable Care Act
The Legislation Would Have Resulted In 14 Million Additional Uninsured Americans In 2018, Rising To 23 Million In 2026. According to the New York Times, “A bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act that narrowly passed the House this month would leave 14 million more people uninsured next year than under President Barack Obama’s health law — and 23 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. Some of the nation’s sickest would pay much more for health care. Under the House bill, the number of uninsured would be slightly lower, but deficits would be somewhat higher, than the budget office estimated before Republican leaders made a series of changes to win enough votes for passage. Beneath the headline-grabbing numbers, those legislative tweaks would bring huge changes to the American health care system.” [New York Times, 5/24/17]
The Legislation Replaced The Individual Mandate With A Potential 12-Month 30% Premium Surcharge For Those Who Were Without Coverage For Longer Than 63 Days. According to Vox, “Unlike Obamacare, the AHCA does not mandate that all Americans be covered by health insurance or pay a fee. It repeals the individual mandate, which was one of Obamacare’s least popular provisions. Instead, it has a different way of penalizing people who decide to remain uninsured: requiring those who don’t maintain ‘continuous coverage’ to pay a hefty fine when they want to reenter the insurance market. This continuous coverage policy has shown up a lot in Republican replacement plans. It was part of Speaker Ryan’s A Better Way proposal and Rep. Tom Price’s Empowering Patients First Act. Here’s how it works: If a worker goes straight from insurance at work to her own policy, her insurer has to charge her a standard rate — it can’t take the cost of her condition into account. But if said worker had a lapse in coverage longer than 63 days — perhaps she couldn’t afford a new plan between jobs — and went to the individual market later, insurers could charge her a 30 percent premium surcharge. She would need to pay that higher premium for a full year before returning to the standard rate.” [Vox, 5/4/17]
The American Health Care Act Would Have Cut Taxes By Billions, Mostly For The Wealthiest Americans
The Legislation Would Have Cut Taxes By $662 Billion, Mostly For The Wealthy. According to Vox, “The House bill would also cut taxes by $662 billion over the next decade, according to a separate analysis released Wednesday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, mostly by repealing Obamacare taxes on the wealthy and health care industries.” [Vox, 5/24/17]
The American Health Care Act Would Have Repealed A Limitation On How Much Insurance Companies Could Have Deducted Executive Pay As A Business Expense
The Legislation Would Have Repealed A Limitation On How Much Insurance Companies Can Deduct Executive Pay As A Business Expense. According to CNBC, “The proposed tax break, buried in cryptic language in the Republican plan, would allow health insurers to more fully deduct the value of their executives’ compensation on their taxes. That compensation can be as high as tens of millions of dollars, in the case of CEOs of insurers. Those deductions currently are sharply limited by the Affordable Care Act, which caps at a maximum of $500,000 the amount of an individual executive’s compensation that an insurer could deduct as a business expense. The cap applies to any executive, not just to CEOs.” [CNBC, 3/8/17]
Stefanik Was Criticized By Her Constituents For Her Vote For The American Health Care Act
Stefanik’s Constituents Criticized Her Vote For The American Health Care Act. According to Politico, “Rep. Elise Stefanik received an earful Monday from constituents in the 21st Congressional District who questioned her vote to repeal and replace Obamacare. During a televised discussion with roughly 100 constituents at Mountain Lakes PBS in Plattsburgh, several people criticized Stefanik for voting to cut more than $800 billion from the Medicaid program. […] The crowd was relatively respectful, occasionally booing or giggling at one of Stefanik’s responses. There was none of the hostility that has characterized other town halls around the country. Instead, the tone was one of bewilderment as constituents told Stefanik about how they or a family member gained insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act, and how they feared what might happen if the law were repealed without an adequate replacement.” [Politico, 5/8/17]
Stefanik Defended Her Vote
Stefanik Said That The American Health Care Act Provided More Choices And Better Options As She Defended Her Herself To The Constituents. According to Politico, “Stefanik insisted the measure would provide states with greater flexibility. The congresswoman gamely stuck to her talking points, insisting that the American Health Care Act provided more choices and better options. ‘I think we deserve better health care,’ the North Country Republican said, noting that there are ‘price increases on the [health] exchange’ and that insurers are leaving the marketplace.” [Politico, 5/8/17]
