Skip to main content

Lee Zeldin Fact Checking:“Lee Zeldin voted for abortion bans even when the mother’s health is at risk.”

Facts And Fact Checking,Roe V Wade

From the Left
Fact Check

Zeldin supported bill with narrow exceptions:

Gov. Kathy Hochul has stepped up her attacks on Rep. Lee Zeldin, the Republican primary winner and her opponent in the November election. 

A Hochul campaign advertisement on Facebook accuses Zeldin of having views that are out of step with New York voters. 

"He’s voted for abortion bans even when the mother’s health is at risk," the ad states. 

Her ad cites two votes, both on Oct. 3, 2017, on H.R. 36, vote #549, and H.R. 36, vote #548.

The bill passed in the House, with Zeldin's support, and has not passed the Senate. 

Voted on during the 115th Congress, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" would have banned abortions after 20 weeks and outlined circumstances where exceptions to protect the life of the pregnant woman and for rape and incest would be allowed.

The exception to protect the life of the mother stated: "In reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman 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, but not including psychological or emotional conditions." 

When abortion bans allow exceptions to protect a mother, the legal distinction between "life" and "health" is important. 

We asked Hochul’s campaign about the claim that Zeldin favors bans that don’t take into account the health of the mother. Jerrel Harvey, a Hochul spokesperson, provided a section of the Congressional Record where Democrats put forth an amendment during a floor debate that would have considered a mother’s health - not only her life - which Zeldin and other Republicans voted against.

"As currently written, H.R. 36 shows no concern for the long-term health of the mother, her future ability to bear children, or her ability to care for her family," Rep. Julia Brownley, D-CA, said during debate before the bill was voted on in 2017. "This bill would force women to carry pregnancies to term, even when their health is at risk."  

Zeldin’s campaign spokesperson, Katie Vincentz, said that Brownley’s amendment wasn’t a substantive one, and that Zeldin’s vote was on a motion to recommit, which is a procedural vote that is typically voted on along party lines. Vincentz said the bill already had an exception to protect the life of the mother. 

Precedence for health exception

An exception in abortion laws allowing consideration for the health of the mother, in addition to her life, had been an established precedent. In a case in 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a Nebraska statute that lacked a health exception was unconstitutional, and Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, rejected arguments that there was no need for a health exception. In 2007, however, the court upheld a federal partial birth abortion ban that did not include a health exception. 

Experts said that without a health exception, health care providers can be fearful about what treatment they provide. 

Doctors work hard to care for patients and stay within the bounds of the law, and bans offer language that is often incorrect, not clinically meaningful, and is therefore confusing to health care providers, said Dr. Jen Villavicencio, of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which supports abortion rights. 

AllSides Picks

More News about Facts and Fact Checking

News from the Left

News from the Center

News from the Right