Jim Jordan nabs key nominations for speaker heading into Tuesday vote
By Casey Harper | The Center Square U.S. House Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio has picked up several key endorsements heading into a scheduled Tuesday vote for the next speaker of the House. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., became the center of controversy over the weekend after news broke that he was reportedly considering working with Democrats to elect Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries given the Republican party’s inability to pick a speaker so far. By Monday morning, Rogers publicly endorsed Jordan. “[Jordan] and I have had two cordial, thoughtful, and productive conversations over the past two days,” Rogers wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We agreed on the need for Congress to pass a strong NDAA, appropriations to fund our government’s vital functions, and other important legislation like the Farm Bill. “Since I was first elected to the House, I have always been a team player and supported what the majority of the Republican Conference agrees to,” he added. Jordan, who sent out a letter to fellow Republicans Monday calling to bring the party together, responded on X, thanking Rogers for the endorsement. “Thank you, Chairman Rogers,” Jordan wrote. “Your leadership is just what our Conference needs right now. We must all keep coming together and get back to work.” That move significantly dampens what some Democrats had hoped for, namely the chance to lead the House even without a majority of members. They have blasted Jordan in particular for his questioning of the 2020 election results in the immediate aftermath of that election leading into the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. “Jim Jordan’s lack of legislative history and predisposition to burn everything down (i.e. 2013 shutdown, 2018-19 government shutdown, Boehner speakership) makes for a dangerous leader,” Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, wrote on X. “The only path forward is a bipartisan governing coalition.” Another lawmaker, Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., just last week told reporters that she would “absolutely not” vote for Jordan as Speaker. Wagner, at the time, backed Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., who later withdrew after failing to win enough support. On Monday, though, she also released a public endorsement backing Jordan. “Let me be clear, I am not, and will not, work with Democrats as our Republican Conference comes together to elect a conservative Speaker of the House,” Wagner said in a statement Monday, also saying that “we must elect a conservative as the next Speaker” before going on to give Jordan a full endorsement. “Jim Jordan and I spoke at length again this morning, and he has allayed my concerns about keeping the government open with conservative funding, the need for strong border security, our need for consistent international support in times of war and unrest, as well as the need for stronger protections against the scourge of human trafficking and child exploitation,” Wagner said. The closer Jordan gets to the needed 217 votes to become speaker, the harder it will be for holdout Republicans to justify why they are not electing a speaker, especially with another government shutdown coming in mid-November as well as calls for funding for the Ukraine and Israel conflicts. Jordan is reportedly having ongoing meetings with lawmakers who are locking up key endorsements, bringing him closer to the speakership. “Keeping America safe is my top priority in Congress,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote on X Monday. “After having a conversation with Jim Jordan about how we must get the House back on a path to achieve our national security and appropriations goals, I will be supporting him for Speaker on the floor. Let’s get to work.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Robert Aderholt votes in favor of Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed legislation requiring that abortion doctors provide emergency care to infants that are born alive during an abortion. Congressman Robert Aderholt voted in favor of the bill and applauded its passage. “I was proud to speak on the House floor today in support of H.R. 26, which would require that babies born during an abortion be given the same medical care and treatment that any other baby born at that stage of development would be given,” Aderholt said in a statement on Facebook. “This bill has passed in the House before and previously received bipartisan support.” The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of right-to-life organizations, supports the legislation – the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. “National Right to Life believes that it is time for Congress to act decisively to put the entire abortion industry on notice that when they treat a born-alive human person as medical waste or as a non-entity who may be subjected to lethal violence with impunity, they will do so at legal peril,” the group said in a statement. “H.R. 26 would enact an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded “the same degree” of care that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital.” The bill requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely. The bill also applies the existing penalties of the federal murder statute to anyone who performs “an overt act that kills a child born alive.” It also provides a civil cause of action to women who are harmed by violations of the act. The House of Representatives also adopted Rep. Mike Johnson’s concurrent resolution that would condemn attacks on pro-life organizations. H.R. 26 was sponsored by Rep. Ann Wagner. “I have championed this issue for decades, and I have been blessed and honored to lead this legislation since 2019,” Wagner said. “Thanks to our efforts, after dozens of unanimous consent requests, two discharge petitions, and countless hours of advocacy work, the House has finally taken action to ensure that every single baby born in the United States receives lifesaving medical care at their most vulnerable moment. We must remember today that children are not the only victims of born-alive abortions. Women, fathers, and whole families all suffer deeply from the loss of their child. Our communities are weaker because these bright young ones did not grow up to share their wisdom, laughter, and ingenuity with us.” “Every single newborn, regardless the circumstances of their birth, deserves to share the miracle of life and have lifesaving medical care,” Wagner continued. “We must act with compassion to protect these little ones and give women a strong support system as they navigate the miracles and challenges of motherhood. This bill will save real lives, and it will give survivors a precious chance to build a future. Our world is blessed now that we all know the Republican majority is here to fight on behalf of the precious, innocent lives of those who cannot fight for themselves.” Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said that the House Republicans had promised to pass this legislation if they were given control of the House of Representatives. “House Republicans have been committed to advancing legislation that protects the lives of the unborn and their mothers,” McCarthy said in a statement. “In the very first week, we kept that commitment because strong families are the essence of American life. And in the face of a growing movement to devalue the miracle of life, we must also protect every American fighting for life – including those at pro-life pregnancy centers and churches from violence and threats. We will continue to prioritize the defense of life and all individuals from violence and intimidation.” The U.S. House of Representatives voted 220 to 210 in favor of passing H.R. 26. In addition to Aderholt, Congressmen Dale Strong, Barry Moore, Jerry Carl, Mike Rogers, and Gary Palmer voted in favor. Congresswoman Terri Sewell voted against it. Only one Democrat in the House voted in favor. No Republicans voted against the legislation. “We commend the House of Representatives for passing legislation to protect innocent children from infanticide and urge the Senate to follow suit,” said Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Arlington, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities. “Babies who are born alive during the process of an abortion deserve compassionate care and medical attention – just the same as any other newborn baby.” The legislation now goes to the Senate for its consideration. Aderholt is the dean of the Alabama Congressional delegation. He is serving in his fourteenth term representing Alabama’s Fourth Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Bill protecting same-sex, interracial unions clears Congress
The House gave final approval Thursday to legislation protecting same-sex marriages, a monumental step in a decadeslong battle for nationwide recognition that reflects a stark turnaround in societal attitudes. President Joe Biden has said he will promptly sign the measure, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages. It is a relief for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that legalized those marriages and have worried about what would happen if the ruling were overturned. In a statement after the vote, Biden called the legislation a “critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love.” He said the legislation provides “hope and dignity to millions of young people across this country who can grow up knowing that their government will recognize and respect the families they build.” The bipartisan legislation, which passed 258-169 with 39 Republican votes, would also protect interracial unions by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” After months of negotiations, the Senate passed the bill last week with 12 Republican votes. Democrats moved the bill quickly through the House and Senate after the Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned the federal right to an abortion — including a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage could also be reconsidered. While many Republicans predicted that was unlikely to happen, and said the bill was unnecessary, Democrats and GOP supporters of the bill said it shouldn’t be left to chance. “We need it,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who presided over the vote as one of her last acts in leadership before stepping aside in January. “It is magic.” The bill is “a glorious triumph of love and freedom,” Pelosi said, tearing up as she celebrated its passage. In debate before the vote, several gay members of Congress talked about what a federal law would mean for them and their families. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said he and his husband should be able to visit each other in the hospital just like any other married couple and receive spousal benefits “regardless of if your spouse’s name is Samuel or Samantha.” Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said he was set to marry “the love of my life” next year, and it is “unthinkable” that his marriage might not be recognized in some states if Obergefell were to be overturned. “The idea of marriage equality used to be a far-fetched idea,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I. “Now it’s the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans.” The legislation lost some Republican support since July, when 47 Republicans voted for it — a robust and unexpected show of support that kick-started serious negotiations in the Senate. But most of those lawmakers held firm, with a cross-section of the party, from conservatives to moderates, voting for the bill. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy voted against it. “To me, this is really just standing with the Constitution,” said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri, who voted for the bill both times. She pushed back on GOP arguments that it would affect the religious rights of those who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. “No one’s religious liberties are affected in any way, shape, or form,” Wagner said. Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah said he was “proud to once again vote in favor of protecting our LGBTQ and religious friends and neighbors.” He praised Senate changes to the bill, ensuring that it would not affect current rights of religious institutions and groups. “Civil rights are not a finite resource, we do not have to take from one group to give to another,” Stewart said. The legislation would not require states to allow same-sex couples to marry, as Obergefell now does. But it would require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed and protect current same-sex unions if the Supreme Court decision were overturned. While it’s not everything advocates may have wanted, passage of the legislation represents a watershed moment. Just a decade ago, many Republicans openly campaigned on blocking same-sex marriages; today, more than two-thirds of the public support them. Still, most Republicans opposed the legislation, and some conservative advocacy groups lobbied aggressively against it in recent weeks, arguing that it doesn’t do enough to protect those who want to refuse services for same-sex couples. “God’s perfect design is indeed marriage between one man and one woman for life,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va, before the vote. “And it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think; that’s what the Bible says.” Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., choked up as she begged colleagues to vote against the bill, which she said undermines “natural marriage” between a man and a woman. “I’ll tell you my priorities,” Hartzler said. “Protect religious liberty, protect people of faith and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage.” Democrats in the Senate, led by Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, worked with supportive Republican senators to address those GOP concerns by negotiating changes to clarify that the legislation does not impair the rights of private individuals or businesses. The amended bill would also make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy. In the end, several religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, came out in support of the bill. The Mormon church said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who led negotiations with Baldwin and Sinema in the Senate, attended a ceremony after the House vote with Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “When I think about this bill, I think about how much it matters to people in each of our lives, our family members, our coworkers, our
