Jerrold Nadler on Abortion Dem./Lib./Working-Families (NY-8)

Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.
• Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
• Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.
• Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

• Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
• Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
• Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

• Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
• Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
• Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
• Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
• Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Expand contraceptive services for low-income women.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:

1. prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
2. include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

Congress makes the following findings:
1. Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
2. Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
3. Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
4. Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
5. Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
6. By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.

   LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.

   Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

   Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals.

   Nadler co-sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims

   OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:

   1. accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
   2. emergency contraception on her request; and
   3. does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.

   SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.

   Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.

   By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.

   The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.

   LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.

   Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006

   Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

   Nadler scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues

   OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

   • 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
   • 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
   • 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
   About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

   The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

   The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

   In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

   Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

   Let military perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.

   Nadler signed MARCH for Military Women Act

   Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health for Military Women Act or the MARCH for Military Women Act - Amends the prohibition on using funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to perform abortions by adding an exception for cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. (Current law provides an exception only where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.) Repeals a statutory restriction on using a medical treatment facility or other facility of the DOD to perform an abortion.

   [Explanatory note from campusprogress.org "Military Reproductive Rights Bill", 7/5/11]:

   Currently, the health coverage U.S. servicewomen have doesn't cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. U.S. servicewomen are also not permitted to use their own money to pay for an abortion at a military hospital. Military women stationed abroad are most affected by this regulation, as they would be forced to seek abortion services at foreign hospitals, which may be unsafe, or request permission from a supervisor to leave the country, which forces them to divulge that they are seeking an abortion. Most other American women who receive health care from the government but are not in the service can receive abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to the save the life of the mother. The MARCH for Military Women Act would give servicewomen coverage for abortion in the case of rape or incest and allow them to use their own funds for abortion at a U.S. military facility. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood are among many organizations that support this legislation.

   Source: HR2085&S1214 11-HR2085 on Jun 2, 2011

   Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

   Nadler co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act

   Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:

   • a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
   • a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
   • a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
   • a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
   • a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
   • a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

   Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.

   Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013

   Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

   Nadler co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448

   Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

   Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
   • These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
   • The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
   • It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions

   Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014): During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.

   • Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety."
     Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
   • Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe."
     Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
   • Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified."
     Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
   • Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane."
     Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.
   Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_H448 on Jan 21, 2015

   Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.

   Nadler voted NAY No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

   Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.

   ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women's health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

   Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama's approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.

   Thus both sides' fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.

   Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.

   Source: Congressional vote 15-H0007 on Jan 22, 2015

   Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.

   Nadler voted NAY Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

   Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.

   ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman's right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman's health, no matter how severe the situation. H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

   Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so "complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.

   Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.

   Source: Congressional vote 15-H0036 on May 13, 2015

   Protect the reproductive rights of women.

   Nadler co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women
   • Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
   • before fetal viability; or
   • at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
   • Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
   • Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
   • requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
   • protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed. Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993

     Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

     Nadler co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception

     A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:

     1. Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
     2. Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
     3. Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
     4. In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
     5. The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
     6. Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
     7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
     8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
     9. A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
     Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007

     Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

     Nadler signed Prevention First Act
     • Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
     • Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
     • Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
     • Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.

       At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.

     • Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
     • Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
     • Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
     • Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
     Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009

     Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Jerrold Nadler. Click here for a summary of Jerrold Nadler's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Jerrold Nadler's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Jerrold Nadler. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jerrold Nadler. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jerrold Nadler. Click here for other NY politicians. Click here for NY primary archives. Click here for NY secondary archives.
     2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Abortion:			Jerrold Nadler on other issues:
     NY Gubernatorial: Andrew Cuomo Andrew Giuliani Andrew Yang Bill de Blasio Cynthia Nixon Eric Adams George Pataki Howie Hawkins John DeFrancisco Kathy Hochul Kirsten Gillibrand Larry Sharpe Lee Zeldin Letitia James Marc Molinaro Mike Bloomberg Rob Astorino Shaun Donovan Tom Suozzi Zephyr Teachout NY Senatorial: Alex Merced Charles Schumer Chele Farley Dave Webber Kirsten Gillibrand Marc Molinaro Scott Noren Wendy Long	Open Seats / Turnovers 2022: AL-5: Mo Brooks (R) running for AL Senator CA-37: Karen Bass (D) running for mayor of Los Angeles FL-10: Val Demings (D) running for FL Senator FL-13: Charlie Crist (D) running for FL governor HI-2: Kai Kahele (D) running for MD governor MD-4: Anthony G. Brown (D) running for attorney general of Maryland MO-4: Vicky Hartzler (R) running for MO Senator MO-7: Billy Long (R) running for MO Senator NY-1: Lee Zeldin (R) running for NY governor NY-3: Thomas Suozzi (D) running for NY governor NC-8: Ted Budd (R) running for NC Senator NC-11: Madison Cawthorn (R) Incumbent lost renomination OH-13: Tim Ryan (D) running for OH Senator OK-2: Markwayne Mullin (R) running for OK Senator OR-5: Kurt Schrader (D) Incumbent lost renomination PA-17: Conor Lamb (D) running for PA Senator SC-7: Tom Rice (R) Incumbent lost renomination TX-1: Louie Gohmert (R) running for attorney general of Texas VT-0: Peter Welch (D) running for VT Senator Special Elections 2021: LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Hot Races 2022: CA-27: Christy Smith (D) vs. Mike Garcia (R) FL 27: Annette Taddeo (D) vs. Maria Elvira Salazar (R) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux (D) lost redistricting race to Lucy McBath (D) GA-10: Vernon Jones(R) vs. Paul Broun (R,lost May 24 primary) to replace Jody Hice (R) running for Secretary of GA ME-2: Bruce Poliquin (R) rematch against Jared Golden (D) MI-10: John James (R) - running for newly redistricted seat MI-11: Andy Levin (D) redistricted to face Haley Stevens (D) MT 1: Ryan Zinke (R) - running for newly created seat MT-2: Al Olszewski(R) vs. Sam Rankin(Libertarian) vs. Matt Rosendale(R) NJ-7: Thomas Kean Jr. (R) challenging Tom Malinowski (R) NY-10: Bill de Blasio (D) challenging Mondaire Jones (D) NY-11: Max Rose (D) challenging Nicole Malliotakis (R) NY 12: Carolyn Maloney (D) redistricted to face Jerry Nadler (D) RI-2: Seth Magaziner (D) vs. Allan Fung (R) RI-1: Allen Waters (R) vs. David Cicilline (D) TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) - Elected SPEL June 2022; general election Nov. 2022 against Vicente Gonzalez (D) WA-4: Brad Klippert (R) challenging Dan Newhouse (R) WV-2: David McKinley lost a redistricting race to fellow incumbent Alex Mooney Special Elections 2022: AK-0: Sarah Palin (R) vs. Al Gross (Independent) CA-22: Connie Conway (R) replaced Devin Nunes on June 7. FL-20: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D) replaced Alcee Hastings on Jan. 11. MN-1: vacancy left by Jim Hagedorn (R), deceased Feb. 17; SPEL on August 9. NE-1: Jeffrey Fortenberry (R) Resigned on March 31, after being convicted; Mike Flood (R) in SPEL on June 28. NY-19: Marc Molinaro (R) running for SPEL Aug. 23 for seat vacated by Antonio Delgado (D), now Lt.Gov. TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) SPEL June 14 for seat vacated by Filemon Vela Jr. (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile NY politicians Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-225-6923 Official Website Phone number: (202) 225-5635

     
     
     
     
     
     Page last updated: Jun 18, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org