Nick Begich, Who Supported A Federal Abortion Ban, Will Fight To Take Away Our Reproductive Freedoms

2024: Begich Supported A Federal Abortion Ban. QUESTION: “Would you support establishing a federal prohibition on abortion after the point at which the baby can feel pain (approximately between 12 and 15 weeks)?” BEGICH: “Agree” [Alaska Family Action, 2024 U.S. House Candidate Survey, 7/15/24]

2022: Begich Claimed He Supported Allowing States To Decide Their Own Abortion Policies. “To help Alaskans sort through the dozens of options, we’re asking each candidate where they stand on the issues. Here’s how they responded, in their own words, to the following question on abortion: […] Nick Begich (R): ‘I am pro-life. The Supreme Court appears set to return this to the individual states in accordance with the 10th Amendment’s enumerated powers clause. Related legislative action will now be predominantly determined by state legislatures and governors, subject to judicial review within each state.’” [KTOO, 5/26/22]

Begich Opposed Allowing Medicaid To Cover “Infertility Services Like IVF.” QUESTION: “Would you support allowing public health programs such as Medicaid to cover infertility services like IVF?” BEGICH: “No.” [Alaska Family Action, 2024 U.S. House Candidate Survey, 7/15/24]

Begich Said His Position On Abortion Was “Pro-Life.” “ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS: ‘What is your position on abortion?’ BEGICH: ‘Pro-life.’” [Anchorage Daily News, 5/2/22]

Begich Described His Position On Abortion As “Pro-Life” And Supported Allowing States To Ban Abortions. “To help Alaskans sort through the dozens of options, we’re asking each candidate where they stand on the issues. Here’s how they responded, in their own words, to the following question on abortion: […] Nick Begich (R): ‘I am pro-life. The Supreme Court appears set to return this to the individual states in accordance with the 10th Amendment’s enumerated powers clause. Related legislative action will now be predominantly determined by state legislatures and governors, subject to judicial review within each state.’” [KTOO, 5/26/22]

Begich Argued It Was Important To “Support Crisis Pregnancy Centers.” “What specific national policies would you support to help protect unborn babies from abortion? BEGICH: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, the issue of abortion has been returned to the states. However, certain national policy continues to be relevant. For example, the Hyde Amendment is longstanding federal policy that ensures federal dollars are not used to fund abortion. I support this amendment, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision under Dobbs. Under the post-Dobbs framework, it’s important that we promote national policies that will accelerate adoption processes, support crisis pregnancy centers which provide important information to those considering abortion, and implement parental notification when minors are attempting to obtain an abortion. It’s critical that people stay engaged on this important issue and ensure that candidates, ready and willing to implement commonsense policies that protect human rights at each stage of human development, are elected to legislative positions in state government.” [Alaska Watchman, 6/12/24]

Begich Opposed “The Use Of Military Funds To Transport Soldiers To Obtain An Abortion.” “Do you support the use of military funds to transport soldiers to obtain an abortion? BEGICH: No.” [Alaska Watchman, 6/12/24]

Begich Promoted “Information Regarding The Potential For Mifepristone Reversal.” “Do you support the Biden Administration’s decision to allow pharmacies to distribute the abortion drug Mifepristone? BEGICH: No. As has been done across government and throughout Biden’s executive tenure, the Biden Administration has greatly exceeded its authority to unilaterally act in this matter. Biden’s direct involvement in pharmaceutical policy circumvents the delegated authority that Congress has provided to the FDA. These matters are now before the courts. That said, I support information regarding the potential for mifepristone reversal to be included in the materials provided to those who receive it.” [Alaska Watchman, 6/12/24]

Begich “Celebrated The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision” Overturning Roe V. Wade And Said The Supreme Court Was “Correct” In Doing So. “Both Begich and Palin celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, handed down on Friday, that reversed federal protections for abortion access guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. […] Alaska’s constitution still guarantees abortions will remain accessible in the state, and previous surveys have indicated that a majority of Alaskans support abortion access. ‘I think the court was correct in returning this issue to the states and here in the state of Alaska. … it will now become a discussion for our state Legislature,’ Begich said.” [Alaska Dispatch News, 6/28/22]

Begich Supported The Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision And Opposed Congressional Efforts To Guarantee Abortion Rights. “In campaign events, conversations with reporters and at public forums, Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich say they support the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows states to ban the practice and that they oppose congressional efforts to guarantee abortion rights.” [Alaska Beacon, 8/9/22]

American Bar Association: “Abortion Bans Are Forcing Medical Professionals To Deviate From The Standard Of Care.” “Preliminary results of a study by researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) contain stories from medical providers offering obstetric and gynecologic care post-Dobbs, showing that abortion bans are forcing medical professionals to deviate from the standard of care and leading to delays in care and adverse health outcomes. A joint study by Physicians for Human Rights, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice found widespread confusion about Oklahoma’s abortion laws at hospitals throughout the state, showing how near-total abortion bans fuel confusion about clinicians’ ability to provide care during obstetric emergencies, with risk to the lives, health, and safety of pregnant people. States passing abortion bans have been found to have high maternal mortality rates and insufficient maternal health providers.” [American Bar Association, 7/26/23]
Dobbs Decisions Counters Human Rights And World Health Organization Guidance. “Over the past 25 years, international human rights experts and mechanisms have recognized that restrictive abortion laws violate human rights, including rights to life, privacy, health, equality and non-discrimination, and freedom from cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Many of these protections are contained in treaties ratified by the United States. For example, the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992, protects the right to life, which limits the restrictions that states can place on abortion access and obligates governments to ensure access to abortion services. United Nations (UN) human rights experts explained the full scope of human rights protections for abortion access in an amicus brief filed in Dobbs. Human rights experts and the global community have widely condemned the Dobbs decision and its discriminatory impacts on marginalized communities.” [American Bar Association, 7/26/23]

Women Of Color Are More Likely To Face Aggressive Abortion Restrictions. “About six in ten Black (60%) and AIAN (59%) women ages 18-49 living in states with abortion bans or restrictions compared with just over half (53%) of White, less than half of Hispanic (45%), and about three in ten Asian (28%) and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI) (29%) women ages 18-49. […] Among women ages 18-49, roughly a fifth of AIAN (22%) and Hispanic (21%) women are uninsured as are 14% of NHPI women and 11% of Black women compared with less than one in ten (7%) of White women. Moreover, uninsured rates for women ages 18-49 are at least twice as high in states that banned abortion compared to those in states with broader access for White (10% vs. 5%), Hispanic (33% vs. 15%), Black (14% vs. 7%), and Asian (10% vs. 5%) women, and nearly three times higher for NHPI women (29% vs. 10%).” [KFF, 4/24/24]

Begich Opposed Codifying Abortion Rights And Supported Stopping Medicaid From Paying For “Abortion Services In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or When A Woman’s Life Is Endangered By Her Pregnancy”

Begich Opposed Codifying Abortion Rights And Supported Stopping Medicaid From Paying For “Abortion Services In Cases Of Rape, Incest Or When A Woman’s Life Is Endangered By Her Pregnancy.” “Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich say they support the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows states to ban the practice and that they oppose congressional efforts to guarantee abortion rights. Both also say they would vote to end federal Medicaid funding that pays for abortion services in cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy. […] In a Wednesday appearance on a radio show hosted by Alaskan Independence Party chairman Bob Bird, Begich said he no longer supports the current version of the federal Hyde Amendment, which allows federal funding for Medicaid to pay for abortion services in cases of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life is endangered by pregnancy.” [Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8/8/22]

Begich Claimed He Would Vote To End Federal Medicaid Funding For Abortion Services In The Case Of Rape, Incest, Or Endangered Life Of The Mother. “In a Wednesday appearance on a radio show hosted by Alaskan Independence Party chairman Bob Bird, Begich said he no longer supports the current version of the federal Hyde Amendment, which allows federal funding for Medicaid to pay for abortion services in cases of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life is endangered by pregnancy.” [Alaska Beacon, 8/9/22]

Begich’s Campaign Manager Then Said He Supported Allowing Abortions In Cases Of Rape, Incest, And To Protect The Mother’s Life, But That “He Steadfastly Opposes The Use Of Federal Funds For Abortion Services.” “In Alaska, the state government pays for other abortions that providers have determined are medically necessary. Rulings from the Alaska Supreme Court have guaranteed those payments and abortion rights in general. Begich’s campaign manager, Truman Reed, said Begich supports allowing abortions in those cases but opposes federal funding for them. ‘Nick’s position has been consistent from the start,’ Reed said. ‘He is pro-life with allowance for the life of the mother, incest and rape. He steadfastly opposes the use of federal funds for abortion services.’” [Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8/8/22]

When Asked “How Should The Federal Government Support A Person Who Is Forced To Carry Their Baby To Term Against Their Wishes,” Begich Said That That Was A Question For State Governments. “ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS: ‘If you oppose abortion rights, how should the federal government support a person who is forced to carry their baby to term against their wishes?’ BEGICH: ‘With the Supreme Court set to return the issue of abortion to the states, each state will have the opportunity to determine the manner of such support.’” [Anchorage Daily News, 5/2/22]

Begich Said He Would “Continue To Consider” Whether Exceptions Were Appropriate When Asked To Commit To A No-Exceptions Abortion Ban

Begich Said He Opposed Abortion In Most Instances, But Favored Exceptions In The Cases Of Rape Or Incest. “Begich says he opposes abortion in most instances, he does favor exceptions in cases of rape and incest, a position that many pro-life advocates see as punishing innocent unborn babies for the crimes of their biological fathers.” [Alaska Watchman, 7/7/22]

BUT Begich Also Said He Would “Continue To Consider” Whether Exceptions Were Appropriate When Asked To Commit To A No-Exceptions Abortion Ban. “Bird asked Begich whether he would consider revisiting his position. […] While declining to say he would commit to opposing rape and incest exceptions, Begich did say it is ‘something that I will continue to consider.’” [Alaska Watchman, 7/7/22]

Begich Opposed Keeping Mifepristone Available In Pharmacies, Even After The FDA Lifted “Medically Unnecessary Restrictions” Barring Public Access

Begich Was Opposed To Making Mifepristone Available In Pharmacies. “Begich has said he is opposed to making mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions, available at pharmacies.” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/11/24]

The FDA’s REMS Restrictions On Mifepristone That Kept The Drug Out Of Pharmacies Were “Not Supported By Research” And “Only Make Things Harder For Patients.” “Currently in the United States, patients cannot access mifepristone through a pharmacy. It remains out of reach for many people across the country, particularly those living in remote or rural areas, due to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions. The REMS restrictions on mifepristone are not supported by research and create medically unnecessary barriers for patients accessing both medication abortion and the best method of managing a miscarriage.[…]The REMS restrictions on mifepristone are not supported by research and are yet another example of reproductive health care — especially abortion — being treated differently than other kinds of health care in ways that only make things harder for patients.[Planned Parenthood, 1/1/19]

The FDA Imposed “Medically Unnecessary Restrictions” On Mifepristone, A Drug Safer Than Tylenol. “Study after study has shown the exceeding safety and efficacy of mifepristone for use in abortion and miscarriage care. In fact, mifepristone is safer than Tylenol and Viagra when it comes to serious medical complications[…]Despite its approval and long safety track record, the FDA has continued to impose a set of medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, known as a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which has made it needlessly difficult for women and other people who need abortion care to access the medication. [ALCU, 2/2/23]

January 2023: The FDA Lifted Restrictions Preventing The Sale Of Mifepristone In Pharmacies. “For the first time, retail pharmacies, from corner drugstores to major chains like CVS and Walgreens, will be allowed to offer abortion pills in the United States under a regulatory change made Tuesday by the Food and Drug Administration. The action could significantly expand access to abortion through medication.” [The New York Times, 1/3/23]

Begich Touted Endorsements From Members Of House Freedom Caucus, Who Cosponsored A Life At Conception Bill With No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest And Deliberately Excluded Protections For IVF And Birth Control

The House Freedom Caucus Endorsed Begich. “The Freedom Caucus, the conservative group inside the Republican House Majority, came out with a stunning endorsement for Alaska’s only seat in Congress: Nick Begich III. The caucus’ Freedom Fund made the announcement of its support of Begich as one of nine candidates around the country that it is endorsing in the 2024 election.” [Must Read Alaska, 5/8/24]

Begich Called The Idea Of Him Not Joining The Freedom Caucus “Nonsense.” HOST: “This may have been the question from somebody else. It says I heard a rumor Nick may not join the Freedom Caucus. I’d very much like to hear from himself on that.” BEGICH: “Don’t believe— don’t believe everything you hear. That’s nonsense. It’s interesting. The internet is full of rumors. It’s crazy.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:39:31-1:39:50, 8/19/24] (VIDEO)

Begich On The Freedom Caucus: “I Love Those Guys.” BEGICH: “The Freedom Caucus knows where I’m at. I’ve met with them. We’ve had conversations and we continue to so you have to be invited to join that caucus. You can’t just walk in and say I’m joining your caucus. They have to ask you to join. But they’ve supported me. I love those guys. I support them and I hope to get down there and make sure I’m part of the solution to the problems we’re talking about.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:40:25-1:40:48, 8/19/24] (VIDEO)

2024: Begich Accepted $7,192.00 From The House Freedom Fund. [Federal Election Commission, Alaskans for Nick Begich, Receipts, Accessed 9/19/24]

The House Freedom Fund Was Run By The House Freedom Caucus. “In its short existence, the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has made a name for itself through endless efforts to push Congress further to the right, particularly when it comes to reproductive health. Now with the 2016 election cycle underway, the caucus’ political action committee, the House Freedom Fund, seems to be working just as tirelessly to ensure the caucus maintains a radical anti-choice legacy.” [Rewire News, 6/21/16]

Begich Claimed He Was “Honored” To Have The Support Of The House Freedom Fund And Would Work To Restore “Bold” Republican Representation In Alaska. “Constitutional principles are the bedrock of our republic and are worth fighting for. I’m honored to have the support of HFF and to be among that group of conservative leaders who will work to ensure the American promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness endures for generations to come. I look forward to continuing to work hard to restore Alaska’s tradition of bold representation and to grow the Republican majority in the House.” [Must Read Alaska, 5/8/24]

Jim Jordan Endorsed Begich, Claiming That Begich Would Be An “America First Champion.” “Nick Begich is a proven conservative, a successful businessman, and a passionate advocate for Alaska’s future. In Congress, Nick will be an America First champion. This race is critical to keeping the House and growing the Republican Majority. Now, more than ever, we need principled conservatives in Congress to take on the radical left’s dangerous ideas” [Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 8/29/24]

Image: see original report, p. 16

[Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 8/29/24]

Jim Jordan “Helped Found The House Freedom Caucus, And Served As Its First Chairman.” “In the 114th Congress, Jordan helped found the House Freedom Caucus, and served as its first Chairman.” [United States Congressman Jim Jordan, Accessed 9/20/24]

Begich Touted An Endorsement From Scott Perry, Claiming He Was “Proud To Announce The Support Of One Of Congress’s Strongest Conservatives.” “I’m proud to announce the support of one of Congress’ strongest conservatives, Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA)! Here’s what Congressman Perry had to say about our House race:‘I know Nick Begich and I knew Don Young. Nick is tough; he’s a fighter; and he can be trusted to stand against the DC establishment. We must restore our individual freedoms, reign in government spending, and stop the sprawling bureaucracy trying to control our lives. I’m asking Alaska to send Nick Begich to DC so he can help us get this done and fight for your state like Don Young always did.’ [Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 3/18/24]

Image: see original report, p. 17

[Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 3/18/24]

Scott Perry “Was An Early Member And Former Chairman Of The House Freedom Caucus.” “Perry was an early Member and former Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, whose mission is ‘to give a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the

Rule of Law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.’” [Congressman Scott Perry, Accessed 9/20/24]

Rep. Byron Donalds Endorsed Begich In 2024. [Alaskans for Nick Begich, Accessed 9/20/24]

Byron Donalds Was “A Member Of The House Freedom Caucus.” “[Byron] Donalds is a member of the Freedom Caucus.” [Fox News, 11/4/22]
Begich Gave A “Special Thank You” To Byron Donalds For His Work In Congress. “True honor to hear Pres. Trump at Mar-a-Lago and to be among so many America First leaders this weekend. A special thank you to @ByronDonalds for his leadership in Congress, and for keeping a zealously left media in check with our secret weapon: TRUTH.” [Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 5/5/24]

Image: see original report, p. 18

[Twitter, @NickForAlaska, 5/5/24]

2021: Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, And Byron Donalds Cosponsored H.R. 1011, The Life At Conception Act. According to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Jordan and Perry Cosponsored the Life at Conception Act, which stated “This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.” [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 1011, 2/11/21]

The Life At Conception Act Was A National Abortion Ban That Made No Exceptions For Rape Or Incest. “The Life at Conception Act would ban abortion from conception with zero exceptions for rape or incest. This would include banning the abortion pill, a medication that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) back in 2000 and is currently used in approximately 60% of abortions nationwide.” [Third Way, 6/24/24]
2021: The Life At Conception Act Threatened IVF. “The [2021] Life at Conception Act would have established that life begins at fertilization. Like the Alabama ruling, the act would have severely restricted—if not effectively banned—IVF treatments, because it grants ‘equal protection’ to ‘preborn’ humans, including embryos. Since it’s common for fertilized eggs not to survive the IVF process, the act would put doctors at risk of being charged for wrongful death of embryos. That risk would be enough to scupper the IVF industry.” [The New Republic, 3/21/24]
The 2017 Version Of The Life At Conception Act Made Exceptions For IVF; Subsequent Versions Of The Bill Excluded It. “In the [118th] Congress, a Life at Conception Act has 125 Republican sponsors in the House. Its stated goal is”To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person[…]There’s no wiggle room there, folks. No exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother — or IVF. But now they’re protesting that they didn’t mean to endanger IVF, even though a 2017 version of the same bill did include an IVF exception that was omitted in the current bill. [Seattle Times, 3/1/24]
The Life At Conception Act Of 2021 Copied The 2017 Version Word For Word But Excluded Protections For Birth Control And IVF. The Life At Conception Act of 2017 as introduced on January 24, 2017: “To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of Congress, including Congress’ power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’s power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.” The Life At Conception Act as introduced on February 11, 2021: “To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’s power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, HR 1011, 2/11/21; S. 231, 1/24/17]

2022: Byron Donalds, Scott Perry, And Jim Jordan Voted Against The Women’s Health Protection Act. According to records with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Donalds, Perry, and Jordan all voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act, which had the following bill summary: This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services. Specifically, governments may not limit a provider’s ability to: prescribe certain drugs, offer abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient’s health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to: perform unnecessary medical procedures, or provide medically inaccurate information.” [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 8296, 7/7/22; Roll Call No. 360, 7/15/22]

2012: Jim Jordan Sponsored The Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, Which Would Require Health Providers To Give Women An Ultrasound Before Providing Abortion Services. According to the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Jim Jordan sponsored the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which had the following bill summary: “Amends the Public Health Service Act to require abortion providers, before a woman gives informed consent to any part of an abortion, to perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, display the ultrasound images so the woman may view them, and provide a complete medical description of the images, including the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, cardiac activity if present and visible, and the presence of external members and internal organs if present and viewable. Prohibits construing this Act to require a woman to view the images or penalizing the provider or the woman if she declines to look at the images. Exempts an abortion provider if the abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. Requires the provider to include in the woman’s medical file a truthful and accurate certification of the specific medical circumstances that support such determination. Authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil action in federal court against any abortion provider who knowingly violates this Act. Prescribes penalties. Directs the Attorney General to notify the appropriate state medical licensing authority of penalties assessed. Authorizes a woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of this Act to commence a civil action against the provider for actual and punitive damages.” [Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3805, 1/23/12]

Ultrasound Informed Consent Acts Only Allow Women To Cover Their Eyes Or Close Their Ears During A Narration Of Their Ultrasound- They Cannot Opt Out. “The Kentucky statute compels any doctor performing an abortion to first do an ultrasound on the patient and describe aloud the physical features of the fetus on the screen. The doctor must also play the sound of the fetal heartbeat. Patients cannot opt out of hearing the doctor’s narration or the heartbeat. They cannot ask that the screen be turned away from them. The only way a patient has to avoid the ultrasound images or narration is to cover her ears and close her eyes while the physician speaks. [Los Angeles Times, 12/11/19]

Jim Jordan Accused 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Of Lying After Her Story Became A Flash Point In The Abortion Debate. “Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) refused to apologize for his since-deleted tweet describing the story of a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim as a”lie,” claiming on Thursday that he was merely “responding to a headline” and took down the post once the alleged rapist was charged. The story of the unidentified child’s rape and abortion had quickly become a flashpoint in the debate over abortion rights after the Indianapolis Star reported on her plight on July 1. The patient was six weeks and three days pregnant, right after Ohio’s trigger law outlawed abortion after six weeks following Roe v. Wade’s reversal.” [Daily Beast, 7/14/22]

2024: EMILY’s List Placed Byron Donalds On Its “On Notice” List Of 14 Abortion Extremists. “Today EMILYs List, the nation’s largest resource for women in politics, announced its 2024 ‘On Notice’ list, highlighting 14 extremist Republicans on Donald Trump’s shortlist for potential 2024 running mates […] including Byron Donalds” [Emily’s List, 3/23/24]

2022: Byron Donalds Claimed Reproductive Healthcare Was “Sick, Preverse, And Erodes Our Nation’s Moral Compass.” “Today’s Democratic Party is the party of abortion on demand and without limits, including the unconscionable practice of infanticide. This ideology is sick, perverse, and erodes our nation’s moral compass. The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 is an affront to our system of Checks and Balances and blatantly ignores the Court’s ruling which allows states––not Congress––to enact abortion-related policy. This bill will also impose the radical pro-abortion policies of California and New York on states like Florida, Texas, and North Carolina, where extreme abortion extensions aren’t supported.” [Congressman Byron Donalds, 7/15/22]

Begich Touted The Support Of Anti-Reproductive Freedom Members Of Alaska’s State House

Alaska Representative Kevin McCabe Endorsed Begich In 2024. [Nick Begich for Alaska, Accessed 9/20/24]

2024: Alaska Rep. McCabe Proposed H.B. 107 “To Establish Definitions Of ‘Life’ And ‘Person’ In Criminal Law,” Which He Said Would “Define A Fetus As A Person.” “An Alaska House member has proposed a bill [HB 107] that seeks to establish definitions of ‘life’ and ‘person’ in criminal law, prompting dozens of Alaskans to testify against it, saying it would unconstitutionally limit abortions in the state. Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, said his bill is ‘simply my attempt to define life for the statute’ and ‘ensure fair treatment and protection for all individuals including those yet to be born.’ He said the bill would define a fetus as a person.” [Alaska Beacon, 2/28/24]
Critics Of H.B. 107 Argued That It Was “A Backdoor Attempt To Overturn Our Rights” And Warned That “This Bill Threatens” Alaskan Women’s Liberties. “Dezarae Arrowsun, a board member for the Juneau Pro-Choice Coalition, said the bill [H.B. 107] could be used to criminalize doctors for performing abortions. ‘This is obviously a backdoor attempt to overturn our rights, as protected in the Alaska Constitution, to obtain a legal abortion,’ she said. Emma Wilson from Anchorage said the bill could endanger the lives of pregnant people seeking life-saving care. ‘As an Alaskan with the ability to fall pregnant, this bill threatens my liberties and this bill threatens my life,’ she said.” [Alaska Beacon, 2/28/24]

Alaska Representative Sarah Vance Endorsed Begich In 2024. [Nick Begich for Alaska, Accessed 9/20/24]

Vance Showed “Support For Legislation Restricting Abortions” And “Aimed To Eliminate State Funding For Abortion Services.” “In Juneau, [Sarah] Vance has shown support for legislation restricting abortions and budget amendments. In 2020, she sponsored her own anti-abortion legislation, which was never heard in committee. This past April, the two-term legislator supported an amendment to the budget that aimed to eliminate state funding for abortion services. During a floor speech in favor of the amendment, Vance talked about her unplanned pregnancy when she was 23, which she was in denial about ‘because I had a two-year plan and I was being responsible.’ ‘And so I took a pregnancy test, Madam Speaker, but I didn’t believe it until I heard her heartbeat and I saw the little bean on the screen,’ she said. ‘And so I want us to remember that this is more than just dollars or what court orders. This is the very lives of our future.’” [Alaska Beacon, 11/3/22]

Source report (PDF)