Why almost every Hill Democrat opposed the GOP’s latest anti-abortion bill
“They aren’t working to make life more affordable for families before or after a baby is born,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said about her Republican colleagues.

The House this afternoon passed a bill that would require health-care providers to give the same medical care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would to any other newborn of the same age, even though they are already required by law to do so.
The 217–204–1 vote was mostly straight along party lines with all Republicans in favor and all but two Democrats opposed. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) voted for the bill while fellow Texan Rep. Vicente Gonzalez voted present.
As I reported earlier this week, House Republican leaders pegged the passage of the bill to the annual March For Life anti-abortion rally tomorrow in Washington, DC.
Supporters of the measure, entitled the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, claim the bill is necessary because federal law doesn’t explicitly require doctors to administer this care.
“Innocent children deserve the opportunity to live and thrive—period. It’s up to us to be the voice for these babies who are at their most vulnerable and ensure they get the love and care they need,” Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) said in a statement after the vote. “This should not be a controversial issue, but rest assured we will keep up the fight in Congress to make sure all babies, born and unborn, are treated like the miracles of life we know they are.”
But critics—including House Democrats, who dubbed the bill as the “Reproductive Health Care Surveillance Act”—contend it is redundant since existing laws already protect newborns and that it politicizes abortion by creating the perception that such cases are common even though they are rare.
“Fundamentally, it’s not true,” Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) told me after the vote. “The things that they build these bills around, they have become very adept at creating good titles. But when you get into the meat of it, it’s dangerous.”
Rep. Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.), a first-term member and the only pro-abortion-rights OB-GYN serving in Congress, told me in some cases when a lethal fetal anomaly has been diagnosed, labor is induced so that the patient, birthing parent and family can meet and bond with their newborn as it dies.
Morrison added that the bill attacks patients and families at some of the most vulnerable moments of their lives by conflating killing a newborn, which is illegal in all 50 states, with providing emergency abortion care later in pregnancy.
“This bill would mandate that the doctor take that newborn directly to a medical procedure table under bright lights, possibly perform chest compressions, possibly intubate the baby [with] a breathing tube in the trachea, start IVs, do other futile medical procedures while the baby dies anyway and prevents the family from having that time with their newborn,” she said. And if the doctor does not do that, they are charged with murder.”
Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) told reporters this week that the bill undermines women’s access to health care and slammed Republicans for ignoring issues like the high number of pregnant women who die due to pregnancy-related complications or limited rural access to health care.
“The evidence is clear in states with less access to care, maternal mortality is higher, infant deaths are higher and racial inequalities are greater,” Bynum said. “These restrictions also make it harder for expecting mothers to receive the care they need in pregnancies and complications.”
Senate Democrats unanimously blocked a Republican-led attempt to advance a similar bill on Wednesday afternoon. As with the House vote, the split was along party lines and fell short of the 60-vote threshold to end debate and move to final passage.
The vote took place on the 52nd anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which was overturned by the same institution in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling held the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to abortion care and left abortion policy up to each state. Now, some states ban it while others allow it, creating a mix of rules across the US.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Republicans of pulling a bait-and-switch on abortion by claiming they would leave the issue to the states on the campaign trail only to try to forge ahead on a piece of federal legislation that would further restrict access to abortion care.
“This is the first of many extreme issues they will bring up that are anti-women,” Schumer told reporters. “And in every case, they’ll have the same dishonesty. Leave it to the states? Out the window. Between a woman, a doctor and her family? Gone.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the longest-serving woman senator in US history and top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that at the same time, Republicans are attempting to pass its anti-abortion measure, they’re fighting against proposals to protect and expand the social safety net.
“They aren’t working to make life more affordable for families before or after a baby is born,” she added. “Think about that: Republicans have put Medicaid and SNAP on the chopping block. House Republicans fought back when we tried to fully fund WIC so moms and babies would not go hungry. And Republicans are flat-out opposed to making paid leave a reality, so that a mom can spend time with the baby after giving birth.”
Morrison said bills like the one that passed the House this afternoon exacerbate the OB-GYN shortage, which accelerated after the Dobbs decision. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told me she shares her Minnesota colleague’s concern on this front.
“You can already see it. And think about what it means from the perspective of a physician or a provider. All of your training is about doing what you know is best for the health of your patient,” Smith said. “But now you’ve got to be thinking that when that comes into conflict with what some politician thinks you've got to balance that out, it puts you in an untenable position.”
Senate Republicans slammed Democrats for leveraging the same 60-vote threshold required to limit debate on most major pieces of legislation that they worked to eliminate when they were in the majority the past four years. But whenever one side complains about the process, its on the wrong side of the issue or lacks the votes to break a filibuster.
Nonetheless, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the lead sponsor on the bill, held his own press conference with Senate Republicans to continue his advocacy for the legislation.
Ahead of the vote on this bill, the House passed a measure to improve forest health and reduce the risk of wildfires. This is part of a broader effort to address the growing threat of extreme weather events and improve public lands.
The margin was 279–141, with 64 Democrats and all Republicans supporting the measure. However, House Democrats mostly opposed the bill because they say it prioritizes forest use and conservation at the expense of environmental protections.
The vote came as President Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have floated the idea of placing conditions on emergency disaster aid to force California to adopt GOP-approved policy changes in the aftermath of the wildfires that have devastated Los Angeles County for more than two weeks. There’s also chatter that Republicans could try to link recovery funds to a mandatory increase of the debt limit to attract Democratic support on a must-pass measure that most House conservatives will oppose.
“It’s a nonstarter,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters this morning, proving that the speaker still has his work cut out for him.