Why Is Nancy Mace Siding with Democrats on the ‘Contraception’ Bill?

Nancy Mace, a freshman Republican from South Carolina’s first congressional district who has been the object of social-conservative frustration on more than one occasion during her short tenure in Congress, is hammering her fellow Republicans for their votes on abortion and contraception legislation this week:

Andrew Solender, the Axios reporter who posted the picture of Mace’s garb, notes that Mace “says she’ll vote for the bill” — specifically, H.R. 8373, deceptively named the “Right to Contraception Act” (RCA) — “but predicts, unlike for same-sex marriage, House GOP support will be in the ‘single digits.’”

In a statement on her support for the bill, Mace wrote that she was voting “to protect access to contraceptives, to protect every woman in South Carolina,” arguing that the bill “will allow people to obtain contraceptives, establish the right for healthcare providers to provide contraceptives and information about contraceptives, and also protects different contraceptive methods, devices, and medications used to prevent pregnancy, oral contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, and intrauterine devices.” Implicit in her framing of the legislation — and in her sartorial stunt — is the accusation that, by voting against the bill, the vast majority of her Republican colleagues opposed codifying access to contraception.

But we should consider what Republicans were actually voting against — because that’s not all that the RCA does. Far from it. As John McCormack noted in an analysis of the bill earlier this week, H.R. 8373 “explicitly condemns (in one of its official findings) state conscience laws that protect health-care providers who refuse to offer contraception,” undermines parental-consent laws when it comes to contraceptives, and could also “create a federal right to Mifepristone, the abortion drug used to kill an unborn baby during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.” What’s more, it could effectively make it impossible to bar taxpayer funding to abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood, so long as those abortion providers also provide contraception: 

The bill also prohibits any state or federal law or regulation that “expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out the provision of contraceptives” and “impedes access to contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-related information.”

That provision, which also applies to “facilities” that distribute contraception, would prohibit states and the federal government from cutting off taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood. 

In other words, there are plenty of reasons for conservatives to oppose the RCA. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R., Iowa), a physician before running for Congress, gave a compelling speech on the floor of the House earlier this week about why she was opposing the bill while simultaneously introducing her own legislation, along with Ashley Hinson (R., Iowa), to codify the right to contraception — and the right to contraception alone. Miller-Meeks emphasized that “providing over-the-counter contraceptives is safe and effective for women,” pointing to the legislation she helped pass “as a member of the Iowa state Senate that would allow women over the age of 18 to access over-the-counter oral contraceptives.” The state legislature passed that bill “with overwhelmingly bipartisan support — it would have passed with only Republican support.” “As a physician, former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, [and] as a mother, I understand how important it is for women to have increased access to oral contraceptives,” she said. Hardly the language of an anti-contraceptives zealot.

The National Right to Life Committee, whose endorsement Mace touts on her website, also opposes H.R. 8373, releasing a statement raising concerns that the bill “goes far beyond the scope of contraception, and includes provisions related to the funding of abortion providers, and includes language that could permit the use of drugs to induce an abortion weeks or months into a pregnancy,” and warning that the organization “will include votes related to H.R. 8373 in our scorecard of key right-to-life votes of the 117th Congress.” The Susan B. Anthony List, whose A+ rating is featured on the “Protecting the Right to Life” section of Mace’s website, also released a statement opposing the bill — arguing that it “would be more accurately titled the Payouts for Planned Parenthood Act” — and announcing that it, too, “will score against” the bill in its congressional ratings.

Mace clearly disagrees with these groups whose endorsements and scorecard ratings she touts. Has she taken the time to explain why? It would be reasonable for pro-lifers to expect a serious answer. 

The point of all these bills, from the Democratic Party’s perspective, is messaging: As Politico reported last month, “Democrats and outside groups see an advantage to holding those kinds of messaging votes and argue that doing so will put Republicans in both chambers on the record — painting a clear contrast ahead of the November midterms.” (“As some of our colleagues have said, we want to put the Republicans on record, but we’d like to put them on record in support of contraception,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference earlier this week. “But if not . . . we will remember in November.”) By echoing the Left’s talking point that this really is about contraception, Mace is providing the Democrats with the imprimatur of bipartisan agreement.