S.J. Res. 10, sponsored by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), is a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would overturn President Joe Biden’s interim final rule directing U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities to counsel in favor of and perform abortions. If enacted, the resolution would not only stop current implementation but also prevent future administrations from implementing this harmful rule, protecting both would-be victims of abortions in VA facilities and taxpayers from having to pay for abortions.

(Failed on 4/19/2023, 48 yeas to 51 nays, Roll Call No. 90)

FRC Action supported this Resolution.

S.J. Res. 4, sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), seeks to undermine the constitutional amendment process by arbitrarily removing the Equal Rights Amendment’s (ERA) deadline for ratification. If ratified, the ERA could roll back women’s civil rights protections and clear the way for forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion on demand. In addition, the ERA text does not define “sex,” leaving the door open for activist judges to redefine the term to include gender identity. This cloture vote was on the Motion to Proceed to the underlying bill, which required 60 votes.

(Failed on 4/27/2023, 51 yeas to 47 nays, Roll Call No. 99)

FRC Action opposed this Motion.

Nancy Abudu has served as the Strategic Litigation Director at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a corrupt organization known for targeting its political opponents with its “hate group” label and dangerous rhetoric. The SPLC has been linked to domestic terrorism on more than one occasion, including an attempted mass shooting at Family Research Council in 2012. During her confirmation hearing in 2022, Abudu refused to squarely answer questions regarding how involved she was in her organization’s abuse of the judicial process through judge-shopping (i.e., unethically selecting venues for cases in order to try to select a sympathetic judge). Her failure to distance herself from the SPLC’s radical positions and dangerous rhetoric should disqualify her among fair-minded observers from having the capacity to serve on the bench as an impartial jurist. This cloture vote was on the Motion to Proceed to the underlying nomination, which required 60 votes; FRC Action scored both cloture and the final vote.

(Cloture invoked on 5/17/2023, 50 yeas to 48 nays, Roll Call No. 131)

FRC Action opposed this Motion.

Nancy Abudu has served as the Strategic Litigation Director at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a corrupt organization known for targeting its political opponents with its “hate group” label and dangerous rhetoric. The SPLC has been linked to domestic terrorism on more than one occasion, including an attempted mass shooting at Family Research Council in 2012. During her first confirmation hearing in 2022, Abudu refused to squarely answer questions regarding how involved she was in her organization’s abuse of the judicial process through judge-shopping (i.e., unethically selecting venues for cases in order to try to select a sympathetic judge). Her failure to distance herself from the SPLC’s radical positions and dangerous rhetoric should disqualify her among fair-minded observers from having the capacity to serve on the bench as an impartial jurist. This vote was on final confirmation, which required a simple majority.

(Confirmed on 5/18/2023, 49 yeas to 47 nays, Roll Call No. 132)

FRC Action opposed this Confirmation.

Julie Rikelman has a long history of radical pro-abortion advocacy. She has served as the Senior Director of U.S. Litigation for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization dedicated to establishing abortion as a “fundamental human right.” As an attorney, Rikelman has defended abortionists in court on several occasions, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), when she argued in favor of legalized nationwide abortion through birth. She has consistently displayed an activist’s allegiance to the pro-abortion cause, making her unfit to serve as a U.S. Circuit Court judge. This vote was on the Motion to Proceed to the underlying nomination, which required 60 votes; FRC Action scored both cloture and the final vote.

(Cloture invoked on 6/15/2023, 53 yeas to 45 nays, Roll Call No. 165 )

FRC Action opposed this Motion.

Julie Rikelman has a long history of radical pro-abortion advocacy. She has served as the Senior Director of U.S. Litigation for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization dedicated to establishing abortion as a “fundamental human right.” As an attorney, Rikelman has defended abortionists in court on several occasions, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), when she argued in favor of legalized nationwide abortion through birth. She has consistently displayed an activist’s allegiance to the pro-abortion cause, making her unfit to serve as a U.S. Circuit Court judge. This vote was on final confirmation, which required a simple majority; FRC Action scored both the cloture vote and this final vote.

(Confirmed on 6/20/2023, 51 yeas to 43 nays, Roll Call No. 166)

FRC Action opposed this Confirmation.

Dr. Monica Bertagnolli has demonstrated that she puts LGBT ideology ahead of medicine. For example, during her confirmation hearing she refused to denounce taxpayer-funded child experimentation through gender transition procedures, even when asked about a minor participant in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study who committed suicide. Her leadership at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and work at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, two organizations advocating unscientific LGBT and gender identity ideology, indicate that she would not only fail to put a stop to the taxpayer-funded experimentation on minors that has already been occurring but would also defend and advance it. Advancing this unscientific ideology as the head of such an influential government medical institution as the NIH would threaten proper patient care and health and the integrity of the medical profession. This cloture vote was on the Motion to Proceed to the underlying nomination, which required 60 votes; FRC Action scored both cloture and the final vote.

(Cloture invoked on 11/6/2023, 59 yeas to 32 nays, Roll Call No. 292)

FRC Action opposed this Motion.

Dr. Monica Bertagnolli has demonstrated that she puts LGBT ideology ahead of medicine. For example, during her confirmation hearing, she refused to denounce taxpayer-funded child experimentation through gender transition procedures, even when asked about a minor participant in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study who committed suicide. Her leadership at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and work at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, two organizations advocating unscientific LGBT and gender identity ideology, indicate that she would not only fail to put a stop to the taxpayer-funded experimentation on minors that has already been occurring but would also defend and advance it. Advancing this unscientific ideology as the head of such an influential government medical institution as the NIH would threaten proper patient care and health and the integrity of the medical profession. This vote was on final confirmation, which required a simple majority; FRC Action scored both the cloture vote and this final vote.

(Confirmed on 11/7/2023, 62 yeas to 36 nays, Roll Call No. 293)

FRC Action opposed this Confirmation.

As an attorney, Loren AliKhan has argued against Americans’ religious freedom in five different cases. For example, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012), she argued that the First Amendment does not allow religious organizations to choose their own ministers and designate which positions are “ministerial.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, AliKhan defended the District of Columbia’s decision to prohibit in-person gatherings of more than 100 people for worship (including outdoor gatherings with masking and social distancing) while allowing thousands of people to gather for protests. In both of these instances, the court ruled against her. These are just two of the five instances in which AliKhan has actively fought against religious freedom or conscience rights. Anyone who so consistently argues against the First Amendment should be deemed unfit to serve on the federal bench. This cloture vote was on the Motion to Proceed to the underlying nomination, which required a simple majority; FRC Action scored both cloture and the final vote. The vote was 50 yeas to 50 nays, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie.

(Cloture invoked on 12/5/2023, 51 yeas to 50 nays, Roll Call No. 327)

FRC Action opposed this Motion.

As an attorney, Loren AliKhan has argued against Americans’ religious freedom in five different cases. For example, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012), she argued that the First Amendment does not allow religious organizations to choose their own ministers and designate which positions are “ministerial.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, AliKhan defended the District of Columbia’s decision to prohibit in-person gatherings of more than 100 people for worship (including outdoor gatherings with masking and social distancing) while allowing thousands of people to gather for protests. In each of these instances, the court ruled against her. These are just two of the five instances in which AliKhan has actively fought against religious freedom or conscience rights. Anyone who so consistently argues against the First Amendment should be deemed unfit to serve on the federal bench. This vote was on final confirmation, which required a simple majority. The vote was 50 yeas to 50 nays, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie; FRC Action scored both the cloture vote and this final vote.

(Confirmed on 12/5/20223, 51 yeas to 50 nays, Roll Call No. 328)

FRC Action opposed this Confirmation.

Sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (H.R. 2670, NDAA) sets priorities and authorizes funding levels for the U.S. military for the 2024 fiscal year. A version of the NDAA is passed by Congress annually. The original version of this bill, passed by the House earlier in 2023, was one of the strongest in years. However, when the House and Senate met to resolve the differences between each chamber’s version of the NDAA, many provisions that would have helped curb the Biden administration’s promotion of abortion and radical gender identity ideology in the military were stripped out of the conference report—including a provision to reverse Biden’s unlawful policy of paying for servicemembers to travel out of state to procure abortions. The conference report was then sent to each chamber for an up-or-down vote. By passing the NDAA without this pro-life provision, Congress set a dangerous precedent of allowing the executive branch to promulgate policy in contravention of federal statute and requiring taxpayers to pay for the facilitation of abortion.

(Passed on 12/13/2023, 87 yeas to 13 nays, Roll Call No. 343)

FRC Action opposed this Bill.