Vulnerable Republicans Take Political Risk With Abortion Vote
Vulnerable Republicans Take Political Risk With Abortion Vote
After a hotly fought campaign that centred on her opposition to abortion rights and her role as a mother who drives a minivan and served in the Navy, Representative Jen Kiggans of Virginia’s swing district was elected by a razor-thin margin last year. Kiggans is a Navy veteran.
Her constituents continue to view this matter as extremely important, and if she is seen as taking an overly partisan stance on it, she may find herself in a position where she cannot easily win reelection in 2024. However, Ms. Kiggans was one of dozens of Republicans from competitive districts who voted this week to support the addition of a bevy of deeply partisan restrictions to the annual defence policy bill. These restrictions include one that would reverse a Pentagon policy that aimed to preserve access to abortion services for military personnel regardless of where they are stationed in the world.
Republicans maintained that the measure just protected an existing prohibition on the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions, while Democrats contended that it was a stepping stone to introducing more abortion restrictions throughout the nation. Democrats argued that the provision was a stepping stone to instituting more abortion bans across the nation.
The vote left members in a politically precarious position, including Ms. Kiggans,
who is a top target of Democrats and whose seat will be up for grabs in the congressional elections that will take place the following year. And it raises the issue of whether, in scoring the short-term win of keeping his party unified behind the yearly defence bill — which passed on a vote nearly entirely along party lines on Friday — Speaker Kevin McCarthy may have accepted a tactic that could ultimately cost his party the majority in the House of Representatives. This is because the measure was passed on a vote nearly entirely along party lines.
Ms. Kiggans and other Republicans in a similar position have stated that they have no problem supporting the abortion restriction or the bill itself. The bill emerged from the House loaded with other conservative policy dictates, including one that prohibits the military health care programme from providing transgender health services and another that limits diversity training for military personnel. Ms. Kiggans and other Republicans in a similar position have stated that they have no problem supporting the abortion restriction or the bill itself.
“Taxpayers should not be paying for elective surgery,” Ms. Kiggans,
who ran as a centrist candidate focused on matters that could be discussed around the kitchen table economically, said in an interview on Friday, explaining why she voted the way she did. “This wasn’t a bill about abortion; it was about taxpayers paying for travel for members of the military to undergo elective procedures.”
Nevertheless, Democrats’ House campaign arm wasted little time in targeting Ms. Kiggans and other vulnerable Republicans who had supported the bill, and even some G.O.P. politicians recognised that supporting it was a bad image for a party that was attempting to extend its appeal.
“The reason we’re in the majority today is because of swing districts, and the reason we’re going to lose the majority is because of swing districts,” stated Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina. “That makes no sense from this vantage point. We are only ten days away from the August break, and what have we accomplished for women since the Roe v Wade decision? Zero.”
Ms. Mace, who represents a constituency that is politically divided, vehemently opposed the abortion amendment at first, but in the end, she voted in favour of it because, according to her, it was technically consistent with the stance of the Defence Department. However, she stated that she was sorry that she had to participate in the vote under any circumstances.
“I’m not happy about it,” she replied. “I’m not happy about it.” “I really wish that we didn’t have to do this right now.”
A policy that was put in place by the Defence Department after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion last year would be overturned by the Republican proposal. This would set off a rush by some states to enact restrictions and prohibitions on the operation, which was the catalyst for the rush. Because of this policy, employees who are required to go out of state to have an abortion or other similar services will have their travel expenses reimbursed. The plan does not include any provision in terms of funding for abortions.
The vote was cited as an example by Democrats as a perfect example of Republicans taking votes that could ultimately lose them their majority in the House. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have strategists who believe that the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion and the ensuing attempts by Democrats to highlight Republican opposition to abortion rights contributed to the GOP’s loss of support from independent and suburban voters during the election that took place a year ago.
According to Courtney Rice,
who serves as communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “For the swing districts they represent, they should be doing the opposite; however, they’re not.” “The fact that they prioritised party politics over concerns about constituents’ wallets is going to cost them control of the House in 2024.”
Many vulnerable Republicans in the House said that the idea that the amendments that focused on fanning disputes on social issues were likely to be pulled out of the bill by the Democrat-dominated Senate and would not be in a final version of the defence policy bill gave them some measure of solace. The Senate is now controlled by Democrats.
“It wouldn’t be the way I would run the place, but at the end of the day as long as we pass N.D.A.A. like we’ve done and keep the really nasty poison pills out, I think it solves the problem,” said Representative Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, in reference to the defence bill by its initials rather than its full name. Mr. Gonzales voted against amendments that tried to reduce funding for Ukraine, despite the fact that he supported measures prohibiting transgender health services and limiting diversity training for military personnel. He also voted in favour of changes related to abortion.
