For supporters of the U.S. government’s international family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) program, last week’s mid-term congressional elections turned out even worse than most observers had anticipated, particularly in the Senate.

For the first time, FP/RH advocates may not be able to depend on the Senate to remain a bulwark defending the international program from anti-family planning attacks originating in the House. Historically, the program has always enjoyed a working majority on both policy-related amendments—Global Gag Rule and U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)—and in support of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding, regardless of which party controlled the Senate. That 30-year precedent changed on November 4th.

Election Outcomes and Implications

In the Senate, FP/RH advocates lost at least seven solid votes. In addition, the West Virginia seat went from being solidly supportive (Rockefeller) to mixed (Capito). The Louisiana seat will be decided during a December 6th run-off election between a supportive incumbent (Landrieu) and a hostile challenger (Cassidy), which may result in an additional vote loss.

In the 114th Congress, only 45 Senators can be expected to consistently vote in favor of FP/RH with 50 opposed, pending the outcome of the Louisiana run-off. Four other Senators are classified in swing categories—one as leans pro, two as mixed, and one as leans con.

In the House, FP/RH advocates are likely to have suffered a net loss of about a dozen votes. FP/RH supporters remaining in the House will have even less ability to block proposed funding cuts and harmful policy “riders” that will continue to emanate from the Republican-controlled House in the new Congress.

The projected headcount for the House in the 114th Congress is as follows: 181 pro, three leans pro, four mixed, five leans con, and 237 con. (Five races remain undecided—2nd District of Arizona, 7th and 16th of California, and the 5th and 6th Districts of Louisiana.)

An already stark partisan divide on reproductive rights issues—and by extension on international FP/RH policies and funding—continued to widen in the recent election. Only one newly-elected House Republican is likely to be a supporter of FP/RH issues, and no Democrat elected so far is an opponent. A similar trend is evident in the Senate with only one Democratic incumbent classified as opposed. As a result, the vote headcounts on policy amendments like the Gag Rule and UNFPA now fairly closely resemble the party breakdowns in both chambers. That trend does not bode well for any effort seeking to rebuild a bipartisan consensus on family planning and contraception in the near term.

The election outcome will have other important effects, particularly the Senate’s switch from a Democratic to a Republican majority come January. There will be significant changes in the leadership and membership of the key committees with jurisdiction over foreign assistance programs, resulting from shifting party ratios and the departure of incumbents through retirement or defeat. However, it is important to remember that individual Senators can exercise considerable influence over the legislative process, and FP/RH champions will continue to have the ability and procedural tools at their disposal to prevent more radical anti-family planning proposals from advancing if they so choose.

FY 2015 Appropriations in the Lame Duck Session

Congress returned yesterday for a “lame duck” session to complete unresolved, high-priority legislative tasks, most notably to come to a resolution on FY 2015 spending, before adjourning for the year. All federal programs have been operating at current funding levels and policies under a “continuing resolution” (CR) since the start of the fiscal year on October 1. The short-term CR expires on December 11th.

Prior to the election and regardless of its outcome, there were expressions of interest on Capitol Hill from both sides of the aisle and in both chambers in negotiating an omnibus spending package and starting the new Congress in January with a clean slate, rather than resorting to another short-term CR.

Any political agreement that may be put together on an omnibus spending package will have significant implications for international FP/RH funding and policy, as well as for the rest of the international affairs budget.

As it stands now, the respective House and Senate committee-approved versions of the FY 2015 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill are diametrically opposed to each other in their treatment of FP/RH funding and policy. The House version would cut FP/RH funding by nearly $150 million below the current level, reinstate the Global Gag Rule legislatively, and prohibit a U.S. contribution to UNFPA, while the Senate version would increase funding to the President’s budget request, permanently block a future President from reimposing the Global Gag Rule, and earmark a UNFPA contribution.

Although an omnibus negotiation would likely produce a better result for women’s reproductive health and rights than a CR, regrettably, no certain predictions can be offered as to how this will all be resolved between now and the end of the year.