Bill to establish right to contraception fails in Senate

In a 51-39 vote, the U.S. Senate rejected a measure Wednesday afternoon that would have created a federal right for women to access contraception. The Right to Contraception Act would have prohibited any state or federal law limiting birth control access for women and also banned any sterilization procedure without the patient’s consent. The measure required a 60-vote majority to move forward. All but two Democrats in the Senate voted for the measure, while 38 out of 49 GOP senators voted against it. Nine Republican senators did not vote.

How does the bill define “contraception?” It states a contraceptive is any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy.

Why did supporters think the bill was necessary? Speaking to reporters shortly after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accused some political conservatives of spearheading what he characterized as nationwide efforts to make it more difficult to access contraception. He did not specify what efforts he was referring to. Schumer originally voted for the measure but later changed his vote to take advantage of a procedural measure allowing the bill to be brought up again at a future date.

Why did critics oppose the measure? Speaking to NBC News, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., argued that the bill would have automatically legalized the abortion drug mifepristone in all 50 states. He did not elaborate on how the law would accomplish this, as mifepristone’s primary use is as an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. However, according to articles posted on the National Institutes of Health website, it can be used as an emergency contraceptive or even be taken regularly as a once-a-month pill. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., called the bill a Democratic show vote designed to generate fear when access to contraceptives has not been threatened. He also said the bill would wipe out the conscience protections of healthcare providers who object to dispensing contraceptives, effectively violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Dig deeper: Read Leah Savas’ report in Vitals on pro-life doctors and parents who are challenging the concept of “lethal” fetal anomalies.