But not all important work is serious.

One former HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, recalled a highlight of her tenure: recording a public service message with “Sesame Street.” “The Elmo commercial was to teach kids how to sneeze,” she said. “We were trying to spread good health habits.”

The script called for Sebelius to ask her co-star to “bend your elbow and sneeze into your arm.”

“Elmo has no elbow,” the beloved red Muppet replied, veering off script. So, Sebelius said, they swapped roles: “Elmo taught me how to sneeze.”

Her story punctuated a rare, intimate conversation Wednesday with three HHS secretaries, past and present — and across party lines. Secretary Xavier Becerra, the agency’s current leader, joined Sebelius, who worked under then-President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2014, and Alex Azar, who worked under then-President Donald Trump from 2018 to 2021. Their candid discussion took place at Aspen Ideas: Health, part of the Aspen Ideas Festival, about the job each of them held.

The panel discussion, taped in Aspen, Colorado, before a standing room-only crowd, was hosted as a live episode of KFF Health News’ weekly policy news podcast, “What the Health?,” and is now available to stream.

Becerra, Azar, and Sebelius spoke not only about the common bullet point on their resumes, but also about their shared understanding of what it means to lead the agency at a time when health is at the front of American minds — and in the crosshairs of American politics. Becerra and Azar have led HHS during the covid-19 pandemic, and Sebelius was in charge during the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

They offered frank and at times strikingly similar perspectives on leading a department with more than 80,000 employees; a budget of more than $1.5 trillion; and an agenda most often set by outside events or their boss at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Azar, who described fielding “two to five” daily phone calls from Trump, which could come at nearly any hour, said he started his days huddling with senior staff “to discuss what could hit us in the face today.”

“The White House is not a patient place,” said Becerra, who described losing 11 twin towers’ worth of Americans to covid-19 every day when he took the reins. “They want answers quickly.”

“It truly is life and death at HHS,” Becerra added. “The gravity, it hits you. And it’s nonstop.”

The panel offered some behind-closed-doors takes on today’s top issues, including the bruising fights over skyrocketing drug prices under Trump and ACA contraceptive coverage under Obama.

Deciding which “hills do you die on” was Azar’s top challenge as HHS secretary, he said. “When do you fight and when do you not fight with, say, the White House?” He pointed to his push to eliminate drugmaker rebates paid to health plans and pharmacy benefit managers, which drugmakers and others have criticized for driving up drug costs.

“I left a lot of blood on the field of battle just to try to outlaw pharmaceutical rebates,” he said.

All three secretaries agreed that one of the least understood but most important aspects of the department’s work happens outside the United States, performing what Sebelius called “soft diplomacy.” While many countries are loath to welcome officials from the State Department or the military, “they welcome health professionals,” she said. “They welcome the opportunity to learn.”

Asked what they felt unprepared for when they got the job, Azar — who had worked at HHS previously as general counsel then deputy secretary — replied: “The Trump administration.”

Coming from the administration of former President George W. Bush and later a stint as president of the U.S. division of the drugmaker Eli Lilly, Azar said he was “used to certain processes and ways people interact.” Working in the Trump administration, “it was different.”

The atypical assembly of current and former political appointees also offered a chance for some unusually friendly banter.

Becerra noted that one reason he was familiar with HHS programs was because he had filed numerous lawsuits challenging the agency’s actions when he was attorney general of California.

“Oh, he sued me a lot,” Azar quipped, as the group laughed. “Becerra v. Azar, all over the place.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Policy analysts, Democrats, and Republicans dissatisfied with the deal agree: Federal health programs have dodged a budgetary bullet in the Washington showdown over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

A compromise bill, approved late Thursday by the Senate, includes some trims and caps on health spending for the next two years.

But the deal spares health programs like Medicaid from the deep cuts approved in April by the Republican-led House. The bill suspends the debt ceiling — the federal government’s borrowing limit — until January 1, 2025, after the next presidential election.

The need for Congress to act to avoid an unprecedented debt default and its rippling economic consequences gave House Republicans leverage to extract spending concessions from Democrats. But in the end the compromise bill, negotiated primarily by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Biden administration officials, limits health spending only slightly.

The most conservative Republicans said they are outraged at what they see as a giveaway to Democrats. “It is a bad deal,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the bill’s most outspoken opponents, during a news conference at the Capitol. “No one sent us here to borrow an additional $4 trillion to get absolutely nothing in return.”

Besides the spending limits, the main health-related concession made by Democrats is the clawback of about $27 billion in money appropriated for covid-related programs but not yet spent.

Only a portion of the money being reclaimed from covid programs is specifically health-related; money is also being returned to the federal government from programs centered on housing and transportation, for example.

Of the unspent covid funds, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the biggest single rescission is nearly $10 billion from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. The CDC would have to give back $1.5 billion. But exempted from those health-related givebacks are “priority” efforts such as funding for research into next-generation covid vaccines; long covid research; and efforts to improve the pharmaceutical supply chain.

“The deal appears to have minimal effect on the health sector,” concluded Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington-based policy strategy firm.

That would not have been the case with the House Republicans’ “Limit, Save, Grow Act,” their first offer to raise the debt ceiling and slow — in some areas dramatically — the growth of federal spending. That bill would have reduced the federal deficit by nearly $5 trillion over the next decade, including through more than $3 trillion in cuts to domestic discretionary programs, which account for roughly 15 percent of federal spending. A part of that 15 percent goes to health programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA.

The Republican bill would also have imposed nationwide work requirements on the Medicaid health program, a proposal that was vehemently opposed by Democrats in Congress and the Biden administration.

Democrats argued that such requirements would not increase work but rather would separate eligible people from their health insurance for failing to complete required paperwork. That is already happening, according to a KFF Health News analysis, as states begin to trim rolls following the end of the covid public health emergency.

The compromise bill, however, leaves untouched the major federal health programs, Medicare and Medicaid — amounting to a political victory for Democrats, who prioritized protecting entitlement programs. The deal includes no new work requirements for Medicaid.

The bill also freezes other health spending at its current level for the coming fiscal year and allows for a 1% increase the following year. It will be up to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to determine later exactly how to distribute the funds among the discretionary programs whose spending levels they oversee.

Advocacy groups have argued that even a funding freeze hurts programs that provide needed services to millions of Americans. The result, said Sharon Parrott, president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “will still be cuts overall in key national priorities when the very real impact of inflation is taken into account.”

Even less happy, however, are conservatives who had hoped the debt ceiling fight would give them a chance to take a much bigger bite out of federal spending.

“Overall, this agreement would continue America’s trajectory towards economic destruction and expanded federal control,” Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said in a statement.

[Update: This article was updated at 8:10 p.m. ET on June 1, 2023, to reflect news developments.]

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Doctors are showing — through their words and actions — that they are reluctant to practice in places where making the best decision for a patient could result in huge fines or even a prison sentence. And when clinics that provide abortions close their doors, all the other services offered there also shut down, including regular exams, breast cancer screenings, and contraception.

The concern about repercussions for women’s health is being raised not just by abortion rights advocates. One recent warning comes from Jerome Adams, who served as surgeon general in the Trump administration.

In a tweet thread in April, Adams wrote that “the tradeoff of a restricted access (and criminalizing doctors) only approach to decreasing abortions could end up being that you actually make pregnancy less safe for everyone, and increase infant and maternal mortality.”

An early indication of that impending medical “brain drain” came in February, when 76% of respondents in a survey of more than 2,000 current and future physicians said they would not even apply to work or train in states with abortion restrictions. “In other words,” wrote the study’s authors in an accompanying article, “many qualified candidates would no longer even consider working or training in more than half of U.S. states.”

Indeed, states with abortion bans saw a larger decline in medical school seniors applying for residency in 2023 compared with states without bans, according to a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges. While applications for OB-GYN residencies were down nationwide, the decrease in states with complete abortion bans was more than twice as large as those with no restrictions (10.5% vs. 5.2%).

That means fewer doctors to perform critical preventive care like Pap smears and screenings for sexually transmitted infections, which can lead to infertility.

Care for pregnant women specifically is at risk, as hospitals in rural areas close maternity wards because they can’t find enough professionals to staff them — a problem that predated the abortion ruling but has only gotten worse since.

In March, Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, announced it would discontinue its labor and delivery services, in part because of “Idaho’s legal and political climate” that includes state legislators continuing to “introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care.”

Heart-wrenching reporting from around the country shows that abortion bans are also imperiling the health of some patients who experience miscarriage and other nonviable pregnancies. Earlier this year, a pregnant woman with a nonviable fetus in Oklahoma was told to wait in the parking lot until she got sicker after being informed that doctors “can’t touch you unless you are crashing in front of us.”

A study by researchers from the State University of New York-Buffalo published in the Women’s Health Issues journal found that doctors practicing in states with restrictive abortion policies are less likely than those in states with supportive abortion policies to have been trained to perform the same early abortion procedures that are used for women experiencing miscarriages early in pregnancy.

But it’s more than a lack of doctors that could complicate pregnancies and births. States with the toughest abortion restrictions are also the least likely to offer support services for low-income mothers and babies. Even before the overturn of Roe, a report from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research group, found that maternal death rates in states with abortion restrictions or bans were 62% higher than in states where abortion was more readily available.

Women who know their pregnancies could become high-risk are thinking twice about getting or being pregnant in states with abortion restrictions. Carmen Broesder, an Idaho woman who chronicled her difficulties getting care for a miscarriage in a series of viral videos on TikTok, told ABC News she does not plan to try to get pregnant again.

“Why would I want to go through my daughter almost losing her mom again to have another child?” she said. “That seems selfish and wrong.”

The anti-abortion movement once appeared more sensitive to arguments that its policies neglect the needs of women and children, a charge made most famously by former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who once said: “Conservatives believe that from the standpoint of the federal government, life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

In fact, an icon of the anti-abortion movement — Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who died in 2007 — made a point of partnering with liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on legislation to expand Medicaid coverage and provide more benefits to address infant mortality in the late 1980s.

Few anti-abortion groups are following that example by pushing policies to make it easier for people to get pregnant, give birth, and raise children. Most of those efforts are flying under the radar.

This year, Americans United for Life and Democrats for Life of America put out a joint position paper urging policymakers to “make birth free.” Among their suggestions are automatic insurance coverage, without deductibles or copays, for pregnancy and childbirth; eliminating payment incentives for cesarean sections and in-hospital deliveries; and a “monthly maternal stipend” for the first two years of a child’s life.

“Making birth free to American mothers can and should be a national unifier in a particularly divided time,” says the paper. Such a policy could not only make it easier for women to start families, but it could address the nation’s dismal record on maternal mortality.

In a year when the same Republican lawmakers who are supporting a national abortion ban are even more vehemently pushing for large federal budget cuts, however, a make-birth-free policy seems unlikely to advance very far or very quickly.

That leaves abortion opponents at something of a crossroads: Will they follow Hyde’s example and champion policies that expand and protect access to care? Or will women’s health suffer under the anti-abortion movement’s victory?

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“I took on this role, at your request, with the goal of leaving behind the dark days of the pandemic and moving CDC — and public health — forward into a much better and more trusted place,” she wrote in her resignation letter to President Joe Biden, which was released Friday.

In a statement from the White House, Biden said Walensky “led a complex organization on the frontlines of a once-in-a-generation pandemic with honesty and integrity.”

Her departure is another mark of the federal government’s official winding down of the covid pandemic response. The nation’s declared public health emergency expires May 11, and on Friday the World Health Organization downgraded the virus from a “global emergency” to a “global health threat.”

White House officials widely expect covid czar Ashish Jha to leave Washington and return to his job in Rhode Island as dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.

Walensky was seen from the start of her tenure as a curious choice to lead the influential agency. An infectious disease specialist who practiced in Boston and taught at Harvard Medical School, she came with little direct experience in public health and none leading a large and labyrinthine organization.

She took over the CDC, which is headquartered in Atlanta, at one of the most difficult times in the agency’s history. Once among the most trusted agencies in the federal government, the CDC fell on particularly hard times during the Trump administration, when officials intervened in the agency’s pandemic response and prompted accusations that the CDC was putting politics ahead of public health.

The perception inside the agency that its science-based recommendations were being ignored or altered contributed to a staff exodus, particularly from the agency’s senior tier. The departures further undercut Walensky’s ability to turn around the agency’s reputation, as well as to reassure a skeptical public that its recommendations were based on what was best for public health, not politics.

Biden has not yet announced a replacement for Walensky. The head of the CDC is one of the few top jobs in the Department of Health and Human Services that does not require Senate confirmation. That is scheduled to change, but not until 2025. So, Biden’s next choice could take the helm immediately.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It appears to be the first time a court has directly usurped the FDA’s authority to provide the final word on which medicines are safe and effective and, thus, allowed to be sold in the United States. And it could well throw the pharmaceutical industry into turmoil.

If the decision is allowed to stand, it could affect far more than abortion drugs. “It will radically alter the process for approving drugs and will kill innovation and hinder bringing new drugs to market,” Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told reporters in a briefing April 10. It might also invite what she called “fringe groups” to challenge any other drug they object to for political reasons.

So you’d think challenging the decision would be a top priority for the prescription drug industry’s national advocacy group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA. Yet the drug lobby did not join the long list of medical, legal, and academic groups that filed “friend of the court,” or amicus, briefs in the Texas case.

And since the ruling, PhRMA has declined to weigh in beyond the relatively bland statement it made weeks ago. “The FDA is the gold standard for determining whether a medicine is safe and effective for people to use,” said Priscilla VanderVeer, PhRMA’s vice president for public affairs. “While PhRMA and our members are not a party to this litigation, our focus is on ensuring a policy environment that supports the agency’s ability to regulate and provides access to FDA-approved medicines.”

By contrast, many individual drug companies, as well as the biotech industry’s trade group, were quick to decry the ruling. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization said the ruling sets “a dangerous precedent for undermining the FDA and creating regulatory uncertainty that will impede the development of important new treatments and therapies.”

PhRMA’s relative silence is puzzling, said Carole Joffe, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco and an expert on the sociology of reproductive health issues. “PhRMA now has to contemplate the politicization of potentially everything. For Big Pharma, one could argue that a Pandora’s box has been opened.”

Even more puzzling, though, is that PhRMA has only to look at another major health industry player, the physicians’ major lobbying group, the American Medical Association, for an object lesson in how sitting on the sidelines of a polarizing political issue can cost an industry or profession a chunk of its autonomy.

When it comes to abortion, lawmakers at the state and federal level, not to mention judges, have been essentially practicing medicine without a license for over a half-century, since the decision in Roe v. Wade itself. In that case, seven Supreme Court justices signed on to a framework for pregnancy (dividing it into “trimesters”) that did not exist before, at least not medically.

The AMA played a major role in making abortion illegal in the 19th century, when it sought to supplant midwives and others whom doctors saw as threats to their economic and professional power. But in the 20th century, the organization was slow to recognize that doctors’ professional judgments were being supplanted by those of others — lawmakers and judges. The AMA did not even file an amicus brief in the Roe case itself, and for much of the next four decades tried mightily to stay out of the abortion fray, even as warnings grew that medical professionals were losing the right to practice according to the best medical evidence.

After the Supreme Court upheld the first ban on a specific abortion procedure in 2007 — a ban the AMA had initially endorsed, then opposed — it was clear that physicians were losing their primacy over the practice of medicine.

Yet the stigma attached to abortion remained. Even after the AMA formally supported abortion rights, the group “did as little as possible,” said Joffe. Over several decades, most doctors tried to distance themselves from both the abortion issue and their colleagues who performed the procedure, Joffe said.

It wasn’t until 2019 that the AMA stepped out of the shadows on the subject of lawmakers interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. That’s when the group filed suit to block two North Dakota abortion laws, which the organization said “compel physicians and other members of the care team to provide patients with false, misleading, non-medical information about reproductive health.” (A federal judge subsequently blocked the law.)

By the time the Supreme Court was ready in 2021 to take up the Mississippi case that would eventually overturn Roe, the AMA realized what was at stake. The state law being challenged — a ban on all abortions after 15 weeks — “threatens the health of pregnant patients by arbitrarily barring their access to a safe and essential component of health care,” the AMA said in an amicus brief it filed with two dozen other medical groups.

And after the decision reversing Roe in 2022, the AMA’s new president, Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., was quick to lament what had been lost. “Medicine is hard, and it’s hard enough without members of Congress or governors or state legislators or others trying to sit in your exam room with you and second-guess all the decisions that you’re making,” he told KHN’s “What the Health?” podcast in July.  

So the AMA has apparently learned its lesson the hard way. Now the question is whether the drug industry will learn that same lesson — and when.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

This time it’s Democrats accusing Republicans of wanting to maim the very popular federal health program that covers 64 million seniors and people with disabilities. In the past, Republicans have successfully pinned Democrats as the threat to Medicare.

Why do politicians persistently wield Medicare, as well as Social Security, as weapons? Because history shows that works at the ballot box. Generally, the party accused of menacing the sacrosanct entitlements pays a price — although it’s the millions of beneficiaries relying on feuding lawmakers to keep the programs funded who stand to lose the most.

Republicans have repeatedly warned they would hold raising the federal debt ceiling hostage unless Democrats negotiated changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The three programs together, along with funding for the Affordable Care Act and Children’s Health Insurance Program, account for nearly half of the federal budget.

The political bomb that went off during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech on Feb. 7 had been ticking for weeks. In his speech, Biden threatened to veto any Republican efforts to cut Social Security or Medicare. It was one of only three veto threats he made that night. During a trip to Florida after the speech, he said it more forcefully: “I know a lot of Republicans, their dream is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Well, let me say this: If that’s your dream, I’m your nightmare.”

Senior Republicans have distanced themselves from the proposals Biden was referencing, notably ideas from the House Republican Study Committee and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to make cuts or even let Medicare expire unless Congress votes to keep it going.

“That’s not the Republican plan; that’s the Rick Scott plan,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on a Kentucky radio show Feb. 9, echoing his opposition to the plan last year.

“Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are off the table,” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy declared the day before Biden’s veto threat.

McConnell and McCarthy know something that Rick Scott apparently does not: Politicians threaten big, popular entitlement programs at their peril. And, usually, it’s been Republicans who suffer the electoral consequences.

This dates at least to 1982, when Democrats used threats of Republican cuts to Social Security to pick up more than two dozen House seats in President Ronald Reagan’s first midterm elections. In 1996, President Bill Clinton won reelection in part by convincing voters that Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to privatize Medicare and Social Security.

At the beginning of his second term, in 2005, President George W. Bush made it his top priority to “partially privatize” Social Security. That proved singularly unpopular. In the following midterm elections, Democrats won back the House for the first time since losing it in 1994.

In 2010, Republicans turned the tables, using what they described as “Medicare cuts” in the Affordable Care Act to sweep back to power in the House. (Those “cuts” were mostly reductions in payments to providers; beneficiaries actually got extra benefits through the ACA.)

The use of the Medicare cudgel likely reached its zenith in 2012, when Democrats took aim at Medicare privatization proposals offered by Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chair and Republican vice presidential candidate. That debate produced the infamous “pushing Granny off the cliff” ad.

The reality is that Medicare’s value as a political weapon also sabotages any effort to come together to solve the program’s financing problems. The last two times the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund was this close to insolvency — in the early 1980s and late 1990s — Congress passed bipartisan bills to keep the program afloat.

Even the word “cut” can be political. One stakeholder’s Medicare “cut” is another’s benefit. Reducing payments to medical providers (or, more often, reducing the size of payment increases to doctors and hospitals) may reduce premiums for beneficiaries, whose payments are based on total program costs. Raising premiums or cost sharing for beneficiaries is a benefit to taxpayers, who help fund Medicare. Increasing available benefits helps providers and beneficiaries, but costs more for taxpayers. And on, and on.

There are fundamental differences between the parties that can’t be papered over. Many Republicans want Medicare to shift from a “defined benefit” program — in which beneficiaries are guaranteed a certain set of services and the government pays whatever they cost — to a “defined contribution” program, in which beneficiaries would get a certain amount of money to finance as much as they can — and would be on the hook for the rest of their medical expenses.

This would shift the risk of health inflation from the government to the beneficiary. And while it clearly would benefit the taxpayer, it would disadvantage both providers and beneficiaries of the program.

But there are many, many intermediate steps Congress could take to at least delay insolvency for both Medicare and Social Security. Some are more controversial than others (raising the payroll tax that funds Medicare, for example), but none are beyond the steps previous Congresses have taken every time the programs have neared insolvency.

Republicans are correct about this: Medicare and Social Security can’t be “fixed” until both sides lay down their weapons and start talking. But every time a granny in a wheelchair gets pushed off a cliff, that truce seems less and less possible.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Although some state GOP lawmakers have filed bills to ban abortion pills or make it more difficult for women to travel out of state for an abortion, others seem split about what their next steps should be. Some are even considering measures to ease their states’ existing bans somewhat, particularly after Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and voters’ widespread support for abortion on state ballot measures.

Meanwhile, Democratic-led states are looking to shore up abortion protections, including Minnesota and Michigan, where Democrats sewed up legislative majorities in the November elections.

Anti-abortion groups said their goal in overturning Roe v. Wade was to turn the decision back to the states, but now they are making clear that what they want is an encompassing national abortion ban.

“Legislation at the state and federal levels should provide the most generous protections possible to life in the womb,” says the “Post-Roe Blueprint” of the anti-abortion group Students for Life.

The new Republican-led House showed its anti-abortion bona fides on its first day of formal legislating, Jan. 11, passing two pieces of anti-abortion legislation that are unlikely to become law with a Senate still controlled by Democrats and President Joe Biden in the White House.

So at the federal level, the fight is taking shape in the courts over the abortion pill mifepristone, which has been used as part of a two-drug regimen for more than two decades, and recently became the way a majority of abortions in the U.S. are conducted.

The Biden administration has moved to make mifepristone more widely available by allowing it to be distributed by pharmacies, as well as clarifying that it is legal to distribute the pills via the U.S. mail. But the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, on behalf of several anti-abortion groups, filed a federal lawsuit in Texas in November, charging that the FDA never had the authority to approve the drug in the first place.

In Texas, some lawmakers are exploring new ways to chip away at Texans’ remaining sliver of access to abortions. For example, one proposal would prevent local governments from using tax dollars to help people access abortion services out of state, while another would prohibit tax subsidies for businesses that help their local employees obtain abortions out of state.

Those measures could get lost in the shuffle of the state’s frantic 140-day, every-other-year session, if legislative leaders don’t consider them a priority. The state’s trigger law banning almost all abortions that went into effect last year “appears to be working very well,” said Joe Pojman, founder and executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group. In August 2022, three abortions were documented in the state, down from more 5,700 reported during the same month a year earlier, according to the most recent state data.

The top state House Republican said his priority is boosting support for new moms, for example, by extending postpartum Medicaid coverage to 12 months.

It’s “an opportunity for the Texas House to focus more than ever on supporting mothers and children,” said Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, struck a similar theme in a Jan. 10 speech, saying she will introduce bills to expand a program for nurses to visit new mothers at home and help state employees pay for adoptions. Previously, Noem said South Dakota needs to focus “on taking care of mothers in crisis and getting them the resources that they need for both them and their child to be successful.”

Some Texas GOP lawmakers indicated they may be open to carving out exceptions to the abortion ban in cases of rape and incest. And a Republican lawmaker plans to attempt to modify South Dakota’s ban, which allows abortions only for life-threatening pregnancies, to clarify when abortions are medically necessary.

“Part of the issue right now is that doctors and providers just don’t know what that line is,” said state Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, a nurse who has experienced miscarriages and high-risk pregnancies herself.

Rehfeldt wants to reinstate a former law that allows abortions for pregnancies that could cause serious, irreversible physical harm to a “major bodily function.” Rehfeldt said she is also working on bills to allow abortions for people carrying non-viable fetuses, or who became pregnant after rape or incest.

Some anti-abortion activists in Georgia are pushing lawmakers to go further than the state’s ban on most abortions at about six weeks of pregnancy. They want a law to ban telehealth prescriptions of abortion pills and a state constitutional amendment declaring that an embryo or a fetus has all the legal rights of a person at any stage of development.

“Roe is out of the way,” said Zemmie Fleck, executive director of Georgia Right to Life. “There’s no more roadblock to what we can do in our state.”

Republican leaders, however, are biding their time while Georgia’s high court weighs a legal challenge of the six-week ban. “Our focus remains on the case before the Georgia Supreme Court and seeing it across the finish line,” said Andrew Isenhour, spokesperson for Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.

Abortion rights lawmakers and advocates have few options to advance their initiatives in these Republican-controlled statehouses.

A Georgia Democrat filed a bill that would make the state compensate women who are unable to terminate pregnancies because of the state’s abortion ban. State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick acknowledged her bill likely won’t go far, but she said she hopes it keeps attention on the issue and forces GOP lawmakers to “put their money where their mouth is” in supporting families.

In Missouri, where nearly all abortions are now banned, abortion rights advocates are mulling the idea of circumventing the state’s Republican-dominated legislature by asking voters in 2024 to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution.

But those efforts could be upended by a slew of bills filed by Republican lawmakers seeking to make it more difficult to place constitutional initiatives on the ballot, and for those measures that do make it on the ballot, by requiring the approval of at least 60% of voters for passage.

Democrats in Michigan and Minnesota are likely to use their newfound control of both legislative chambers and the governors’ office to protect abortion access. While Michigan voters already passed a ballot measure in November that enshrines the right to abortions in the state constitution, Democrats are trying to repeal a 1931 abortion law from the books.

In Illinois, Democrats in control of the legislature recently bolstered abortion protections amid increased demand from out-of-state residents. New York lawmakers this year may send voters a proposed state constitutional amendment to protect abortion, while New Jersey lawmakers decided against a similar proposal.

The November elections brought divided government to Arizona and Nevada, with Arizona now having a Democratic governor and Nevada having a Republican one. Any abortion-related bills that pass the legislatures in those states could be vetoed.

Some Republican-controlled legislatures, including those in Montana, Florida, and Alaska, also are limited in passing sweeping abortion bans because of court rulings that tie abortion access to right-to-privacy provisions in those states’ constitutions.

In Montana, a state judge blocked three anti-abortion laws passed in 2021 on that basis. State government attorneys have asked the Montana Supreme Court to reverse the precedent, and a decision is pending.

In the meantime, Republican state Sen. Keith Regier has filed a bill there seeking to exclude abortion from the state’s definition of a right to privacy. Regier said he believes an individual’s right to privacy should not apply to abortion because an unborn child also is involved.

Democratic leaders said Republicans are out of sync with the people they represent on this issue. In November, Montana voters rejected a “born alive” ballot initiative that would have required doctors to apply medical care to newborns who draw breath or have a heartbeat after a failed abortion or any other birth.

“Montanans said so clearly that they do not want government overreach in their health care decisions,” said Democratic state Rep. Alice Buckley.

KHN correspondents Renuka Rayasam and Sam Whitehead in Atlanta; Arielle Zionts in Rapid City, South Dakota; Bram Sable-Smith in St. Louis; and Katheryn Houghton in Missoula, Montana, contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It is important not to misread what happened in 2022. After a 6-3 majority of justices overturned Roe v. Wade, voters in six states were asked to choose between preserving or reducing abortion rights. In all six — Kansas, Michigan, California, Kentucky, Montana, and Vermont — voters sided with abortion rights.

Anti-abortion politicians have fared well in recent elections, contributing to a wave of anti-abortion legislation in many statehouses. But when voters are asked to consider a direct ballot question about abortion access — as opposed to weighing in on a candidate, whose anti-abortion position may be one of many stances they hold — voters strongly favor abortion rights.

Many pundits were shocked by last year’s results, particularly in Kansas, where voters have backed the Republican candidate in nearly every presidential election since 1940. Less than six weeks after the court’s decision, Kansas residents — including a large, mostly female contingent of newly registered voters — rejected an amendment to the state constitution that was put on the ballot by anti-abortion state legislators in an effort to overturn a 2019 decision by the Kansas Supreme Court.

It was unquestionably a big deal that the abortion-rights side won by 18 percentage points, particularly since the measure appeared on the ballot during the state’s August primary, when its backers anticipated lower and Republican-leaning voter turnout.

But was the defeat of their effort to limit abortion truly a surprise? Not if you look at the history of state-level ballot measures related to abortion.

According to the website Ballotpedia, there have been 53 abortion-related ballot measures in 24 states since 1970. Of the 43 questions supported or placed by anti-abortion groups or legislators, voters approved 26% and rejected 74%. Of the 10 questions supported by abortion-rights backers, voters approved 70% and rejected 30%.

In other words, the abortion-rights side has won nearly three-quarters of the ballot measures.

More than a few of these ballot questions have been in states where Republicans have even more control than in Kansas. In South Dakota, for example, voters in 2006 overturned a sweeping abortion ban passed by the legislature, which was designed to prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. Two years later, South Dakota voters also rejected a second, slightly less draconian ban.

Even in Mississippi, historically one of the most conservative states, voters in 2011 rejected a “personhood” amendment that would have added language to the state constitution stating that life begins at fertilization. Voters demurred after it was pointed out that such a law could outlaw some common types of birth control and in vitro fertilization.

And many of the anti-abortion ballot measures that were approved dealt with issues that have long enjoyed considerable public support — such as banning public funding of abortion and requiring parents to be involved in a minor’s abortion decision.

That is in stark contrast to the more recent success of candidates who oppose abortion, whose numbers have dramatically increased at both the state and federal levels in recent years. Conservative Republicans won control of so many governorships and state legislatures in 2010 that it led to a landslide of anti-abortion legislation in the following years.

Abortion isn’t the only issue for which voters have split ballots, weighing in on a ballot initiative while backing a candidate with an opposing viewpoint. Expanding Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act is another example. So far, in seven states where Republican governors, lawmakers, or both have refused to extend Medicaid coverage to certain moderate-income residents, voters have approved expansion over those objections.

What explains how some of the same voters who elect and reelect candidates opposed to abortion also support abortion rights in stand-alone ballot questions?

One reason is that until 2022, abortion was not among voters’ top priorities when choosing whom to vote for. As recently as 2016 — when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to work to ban abortion, while Democrat Hillary Clinton vowed to protect abortion rights — only 45% of voters said abortion was “very important” to their vote, compared with 84% who cited the economy and 80% who said their top issue was terrorism. Out of 14 top issues that year, abortion ranked 13th in the poll from the Pew Research Center.

What does it mean for the future? In 2022, according to an analysis by KFF pollsters, support for abortion rights may have helped Democrats soften their expected midterm losses. As abortion has surfaced more in headlines, the issue has become more salient for voters of both parties.

State and federal lawmakers, emboldened by the court’s decision, may need to be more careful in deciding how to legislate on abortion-related matters in 2023. The voters are watching.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La reacción a la decisión de la Corte Suprema en junio pasado de anular 49 años de derecho al aborto aparentemente fue una de las principales razones.

Como mostraron consistentemente las encuestas pre electorales, la inflación y la economía fueron los temas de votación más importantes, citados por el 51% de los votantes en las encuestas a boca de urna realizadas por Associated Press y analizadas por encuestadores de KFF.

Pero el aborto fue el tema más importante para una cuarta parte de todos los votantes y para una tercera parte de las mujeres menores de 50 años. Las encuestas a boca de urna de NBC News indicaron que la inflación fue el principal tema para votar para un 32%, y en segundo lugar el aborto, 27%.

La pronosticada “ola roja” de republicanos derrocando a los demócratas en la Cámara y el Senado no sucedió, aunque a partir del miércoles por la mañana parecía probable que los republicanos obtuvieran el puñado de escaños que necesitaban para lograr la mayoría de la Cámara.

En el Senado, donde los republicanos solo necesitaban un asiento para tomar el control, ningún titular había perdido oficialmente, aunque los demócratas capturaron el escaño de Pennsylvania que dejó vacante el senador republicano Pat Toomey.

Aún no se habían convocado varias otras contiendas reñidas, y el control de la cámara bien podría descansar en una posible segunda vuelta en diciembre en Georgia entre el actual senador demócrata Raphael Warnock y el republicano Herschel Walker.

Entre otros problemas que enfrentaron los votantes el martes, los residentes de Dakota del Sur aprobaron una expansión de Medicaid bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Se convirtió así en el séptimo estado en expandir el programa a pesar de las objeciones de su gobernador republicano y/o la legislatura estatal.

Antes, medidas similares fueron aprobadas en Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma y Utah. La aprobación de Dakota del Sur reducirá a 11 el número de estados que no han ampliado el programa a personas con ingresos de hasta el 138 % de la línea de pobreza, entre ellos Texas, Florida y Georgia.

Sobre el tema del derecho al aborto, los votantes de media docena de estados de todo el espectro político mostraron su apoyo directo a través de iniciativas electorales. En la más observada de esas medidas, los votantes de Michigan aprobaron una enmienda constitucional que garantiza la libertad reproductiva, evitando así que entre en vigencia una prohibición de 1931.

Los votantes de Kentucky rechazaron por poco margen una enmienda que habría declarado en su constitución que no había derecho al aborto. Eso lo convirtió en el primer estado del sur en expresar su apoyo directo al derecho al aborto.

Se aprobaron otras preguntas sobre el derecho al aborto en Vermont y California. La medida de California, que fue aprobada con el 65% de los votos, consolidó el derecho al aborto y a la  anticoncepción.

En Montana, una medida electoral para exigir que los bebés nacidos vivos después de un intento de aborto reciban atención médica estaba perdiendo con el 80% de los votos. Este requisito ya existe en la ley federal.

Además, en varios estados clave donde la legalidad del aborto está en juego, los gobernadores y candidatos a favor del derecho al aborto derrotaron a los opositores al aborto, incluidos Pennsylvania, Wisconsin y Michigan.

El aborto también fue un tema en las elecciones de la Corte Suprema en al menos seis estados, donde los desafíos a las leyes del aborto o las interpretaciones constitucionales podrían decidir si sigue o no siendo legal.

En Kentucky, la jueza Michelle Keller estaba liderando sobre Joe Fischer, un legislador estatal republicano que patrocinó la ley de activación del aborto de Kentucky. La jueza titular de Montana, Ingrid Gustafson, derrotó a su rival, James Brown, un republicano respaldado por el gobernador republicano del estado y los líderes del partido que buscaban revertir un fallo judicial de 1999 de que la constitución estatal protege el derecho al aborto.

Pero el aborto no fue el único problema de salud en las papeletas estatales del martes.

En Arizona, una pregunta electoral para limitar el interés de la deuda médica estaba ganando fácilmente con el 60% de los votos contados. En Oregon, sin embargo, una cuestión en su mayoría inaplicable que declaraba un “derecho a la atención médica” en la constitución estatal estaba perdiendo por poco con el 64% de los votos escrutados.

En medidas más específicas, los votantes de California aprobaron la prohibición de los productos de tabaco con sabor, mientras que los votantes de Massachusetts apoyaron a los dentistas sobre las compañías de seguros al aprobar el requisito de que al menos el 83% de las primas del seguro dental se gasten en atención dental directa. Massachusetts no es el primer estado en imponer tal requisito.

En Iowa, los defensores del derecho a portar armas lograron una victoria con la fácil aprobación de una enmienda constitucional que declara que los habitantes del estado tienen “un derecho individual fundamental” a poseer y portar armas, y que cualquier restricción sobre las armas debe pasar por un “escrutinio estricto” en los tribunales. Para el miércoles por la mañana, con 97 de 99 condados reportando boletas, la enmienda tenía el respaldo del 65% de los votantes de Iowa.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Inflation and the economy proved the most important voting issue, cited as the motivation of 51% of voters in exit polls conducted by the Associated Press and analyzed by KFF pollsters. But abortion was the single-most important issue for a quarter of all voters, and for a third of women under age 50. Exit polls by NBC News placed the importance of abortion even higher, with 32% of voters saying inflation was their top voting issue and abortion ranking second at 27%.

The predicted “red wave” of Republicans toppling Democrats in the House and Senate did not happen, although as of Wednesday afternoon, it seemed likely that Republicans would gain the handful of seats they needed to take over the House majority.

In the Senate, where Republicans needed just one pickup to take control, no incumbent had officially lost, and Democrats captured the Pennsylvania seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. Several other close races had yet to be called, and control of the chamber may well rest on a December runoff in Georgia between Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker. In recent decades, the party that controls the White House has generally suffered serious setbacks in congressional power in the midterms.

Among other issues facing voters Tuesday, residents of South Dakota approved an expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That made it the seventh state to expand the program over the objections of a Republican governor and/or state legislature. Previous successful initiatives passed in Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah. South Dakota’s approval will reduce to 11 the number of states that have not expanded the program to people with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, although included in that list are the heavily populated states of Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

On the issue of abortion rights, voters in five states across the political spectrum showed direct support through ballot initiatives. In the most closely watched of those measures, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive freedom, thus preventing a ban from 1931 from taking effect.

Kentucky voters narrowly rejected an amendment that would have declared in its constitution that there was no right to abortion. That made it the first Southern state to express direct support for abortion rights.

Other abortion rights ballot questions were approved in Vermont and California. The California measure, which passed with 65% of the vote, enshrined the rights to both abortion and contraception.

In Montana, a ballot measure to require that infants born alive after attempted abortions be given medical care was losing with 80% of the votes in. Such a requirement already exists in federal law.

In addition, in several key states where the legality of abortion hangs in the balance, governors and candidates who favor abortion rights defeated anti-abortion challengers, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Abortion was also an issue in contested Supreme Court elections in at least six states, where challenges to abortion laws or constitutional interpretations could decide whether the procedure remains legal. One state saw party control of its high court flip: North Carolina, where a Republican challenger defeated a Democratic incumbent to give the GOP a 4-3 majority. Democratic judicial majorities appeared to be holding in Illinois and in Michigan, which holds nonpartisan judicial elections after the candidates are nominated by political parties. In Ohio, Republicans kept their majority on the high court.

In Kentucky, Justice Michelle Keller defeated challenger Joe Fischer, a Republican state legislator who sponsored Kentucky’s abortion trigger law. Montana incumbent Justice Ingrid Gustafson defeated her challenger, James Brown, a Republican endorsed by the state’s GOP governor and party leaders seeking to reverse a 1999 court ruling that the state constitution protects the right to an abortion.

Abortion was not the only health issue on state ballots Tuesday.

In Arizona, a ballot question to limit interest on medical debt won easily with 66% of the vote counted. In Oregon, however, a mostly unenforceable question declaring a “right to health care” in the state constitution was losing narrowly with 64% of the votes in.

California voters approved a ban on the sale of most flavored tobacco products while voters in Massachusetts supported dentists over insurance companies in approving a requirement that at least 83% of dental insurance premiums be spent on direct dental care. Massachusetts is the first state to impose such a requirement.

In Iowa, gun rights advocates scored a victory with easy passage of a constitutional amendment declaring that Iowans have “a fundamental individual right” to keep and bear arms, and that any restrictions on guns must stand up to “strict scrutiny” in court.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).