Congress Responds to Dobbs SCOTUS Decision

This summer, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a federal constitutional right, thus allowing each state to regulate it as they see fit. The majority were quick to spin into full fear-monger mode to have you believe that rights guaranteed in the State of Nevada, related to same-sex marriage, contraception access, and abortion, are at risk. The fact is, you are being misled on national news or online about a problem or threat that does not exist in Nevada. The reality in Nevada has not changed one bit as a result of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

While I have a strong pro-life voting record in Congress, Nevadans voted by referendum in 1990 to legalize abortions. We already conform with the Dobbs ruling in setting our own rules for abortion, which is essentially legal in Nevada through the first 2 trimesters. The Dobbs decision doesn’t require Nevada to do anything to retain these rights. While I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to mandate taxpayer funding for these items or services, I do believe the will of the people of the State should be respected. That’s why I opposed H.R. 8296, the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act”. Despite what the majority party wants you to think this bill would do, here’s what nobody has told you is actually in this bill:

• H.R. 8296 would create a national standard to allow for abortions of unborn children for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy up until birth. You read that right – this bill would let a mother abort her child up until the day of birth.
• H.R. 8296 would override pro-life laws and prohibit states from enacting legislation that protects unborn children. Just as Nevadans have spoken on what our state laws should be, other states should have the same ability to determine their own.
• H.R. 8296 includes vague language that could also weaken conscience protections for medical professionals, and limit their right to refuse to participate in an abortion. It’s simple – if an individual healthcare provider is morally opposed to performing an abortion, they shouldn’t be compelled to.
• H.R. 8296 removes the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions. In a time when the federal government appears to be willing to pay for everything, as long as it fits their political agenda, like student loans, electric vehicle subsidies, and cell phones for illegal immigrants, add to the list taxpayer funding for pregnancy terminations.

While this bill has been portrayed by the media and majority party as intended to protect women and codify Roe v. Wade, the reality is this deeply flawed legislation goes to the extreme, essentially allowing abortion on-demand. This is as reckless as it gets in pandering for political advantage. I hope you won’t be fooled. Nevadans, on the other hand, have already decided when abortions should be prohibited, primarily up to six months after conception and thereafter in the case of a threat to the life of the mother, incest, and rape.

Long story short—the ability to terminate a pregnancy has existed in Nevada for over 30 years and is still the law of the land. The ability to choose one’s marriage partner has not been changed. The ability to access contraception in whatever form you see fit is the existing practice and has not been changed. The citizens of Nevada have spoken, and their will deserves to be respected.

I will continue to keep you up to date on the issues you care about most. If you would like to receive the latest updates on what is going on in Congress, please subscribe to my newsletter by clicking here.