Reproductive Rights Deep Dives
2024 Congressional Record on Reproductive Freedom
Reproductive Freedom for All’s 2024 Congressional Record on Reproductive Freedom documents the key House and Senate votes taken during the second session of the 118th Congress.
For over 55 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, paid family leave, and protections from pregnancy discrimination—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
Reproductive Freedom for All centers diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in our organization and our work. Continuously learning from our history, and working in collaboration and with transparency, we strive to hold ourselves accountable so we can realize our vision for a world where reproductive freedom is a reality for everybody.
Congressional Record on Reproductive Freedom 118th Congress, 2nd Session
“The second session of the 118th Congress was once again defined by attacks on reproductive freedom by Republicans in both chambers. House and Senate Democrats, on the other hand, fought to restore abortion rights and reproductive freedom.”
Beyond the halls of Congress, the federal courts weighed in on two cases that have the potential to upend access across the country, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration, which threatened access to medication abortion nationwide, and U.S. v. Idaho, which left emergency abortion care at risk. These cases reinforce what we have always known: federal judicial appointments matter. Democracy and court reform remain essential in this fight.
Congressional Democrats United for Reproductive Freedom
House and Senate Democrats held firm against Republican attacks on abortion rights and access. Despite the challenge of serving in the minority, House Democrats made a coordinated effort to advance proactive legislation. In the Senate, Democrats also attempted to advance pro-reproductive freedom legislation, but these measures failed to garner enough Republican support to pass.
Notably, the Right to IVF Act sought to protect in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other related fertility treatments, but was blocked by Republicans. Senate Democrats united in support, but the bill failed the 60-vote threshold. House Democrats launched a discharge petition to force a vote—exposing Republican resistance to basic reproductive health care.
The Right to Contraception Act, which would establish federal protections for individuals to obtain and use contraceptives including birth control and condoms, was blocked by Republicans, despite full Democratic support.
On a more favorable note, it was encouraging to see the Senate confirm Nicole Berner to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Berner formerly served as an attorney for Planned Parenthood and has a strong record on reproductive rights. She is also the first LGBTQIA+ judge to serve on the Fourth Circuit.
Anti-Abortion Attacks Outside of Congress & Democracy and the Fight for Reproductive Freedom
When Republicans fail to ban abortion through legislation, they weaponize the courts.
In March 2024, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration—a baseless federal lawsuit challenging the most common form of abortion care in this country, medication abortion—reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit sought to eliminate access to mifepristone, one of two medications commonly used in medication abortion, despite the medication’s proven safety and efficacy.
The case was brought by the anti-abortion extremist group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), who deployed “judge-shopping” when they incorporated their organization in Amarillo, Texas, and then filed this lawsuit in the corresponding federal district court to ensure that the Trump-appointed, anti-abortion extremist Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk would rule on the case.
After oral arguments, Kacsmaryk took the most extreme stance and ruled that AHM was likely to succeed on its claims that the FDA must rescind its initial approval of mifepristone that it issued in 2000, and that it had to reinstate medically unnecessary restrictions that would pose significant barriers to access. The FDA and mifepristone manufacturer, Danco, appealed the decision to the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit ruled to let much of Kacsmaryk’s order imposing medically unnecessary restrictions on access take effect, but kept the FDA’s approval in place. The FDA and Danco—one of mifepristone’s manufacturers—then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in March and issued its decision in June. The Court did the bare minimum by not ruling to restrict mifepristone at that time, deciding that AHM lacked standing (the right to initiate the lawsuit). While their decision was a relief, this baseless case should have never gotten that far, and the fight is far from over.
The Supreme Court heard another case related to abortion access the following month, this time regarding whether states with extreme abortion bans could prevent hospitals in their state from providing emergency abortion care required by federal law.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that ensures patients who go to a hospital receive emergency care, including emergency abortion care. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Idaho, a state with a near total ban on abortion, for violating this law. Idaho argued that hospitals in the state should not have to provide abortion care in emergency situations because of their abortion ban, even where EMTALA—as a superseding federal law—would require them to do so.
As the case was making its way through the district court and the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court opted to intervene and take the case earlier than many expected. During oral arguments at the Court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar powerfully explained how EMTALA requires states to provide access to emergency abortion care regardless of their state laws, and outlined many devastating stories and consequences that bans like Idaho’s cause. Despite proactively taking up the case, the conservative majority on the Court punted the case back to a lower court, conveniently dodging the issue before the election.
The Biden-Harris Administration Doubles Down on Reproductive Freedom
Throughout the year, the Biden-Harris Administration reaffirmed its commitment to reproductive freedom, vigorously defending abortion access in the courts (including the aforementioned mifepristone and EMTALA cases) and taking executive action to expand care.
Furthermore, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Biden-Harris Administration sent a letter to hospitals and health care providers reaffirming its commitment to enforcing EMTALA. The letter emphasized the obligation to provide emergency care including abortion, and the preemption of state laws.
The Biden-Harris Administration also took broader action to protect reproductive freedom and ensure these fundamental rights. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Biden issued an executive order to strengthen access to contraception and family planning services, ensuring birth control remains affordable and accessible. The Biden-Harris Administration also proposed a rule that would significantly increase coverage of contraception without cost sharing. This provision would not only expand coverage of over-the-counter contraception, but also make it easier to learn about that coverage and strengthen coverage of prescribed contraception without cost sharing.
Political Victories and Results
There is no sugarcoating the fact that the 2024 presidential election was a painful setback for reproductive freedom at the federal level. With a Republican federal trifecta, we have a long fight ahead. But voters still sent a clear message: reproductive freedom is non-negotiable.
Throughout the election, Republicans ran from their records and hid from their longstanding positions opposing reproductive freedom. This duplicitous approach was dishonest, but shows that they know how unpopular their position is. On Election Day, several relevant ballot measures prevailed, even in states where anti-abortion elected officials otherwise succeeded. Initiatives passed in 7 out of 10 states where abortion was directly on the ballot—Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in the three states where ballot measures failed—Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota—unethical and undemocratic Republican tactics played a major role. For example, a majority in Florida voted in support of reproductive rights, but it did not overcome the 60% threshold that Republicans had nefariously put in place for ballot measures.
2024 was a reminder that abortion is on the ballot. It will be more important than ever for lawmakers and organizations supporting reproductive freedom to remain united, mobilized, and ready to push back against Republican attacks on our rights.