by Catherine Saldago
Feb 7th 2023
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) claims to be pro-life. But do his pro-life values take precedence when it comes to his decision-making on spending bills?
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America gives Ciscomani an A+ score on his pro-life voting record, including for "stopping hard-earned tax dollars from paying for abortion," but reality might be a little more nuanced. Ciscomani voted for House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) terrible temporary spending package. While it is very difficult to find any clear information on whether or not the spending package included abortion funding, as of Dec. 7, 2023, Johnson had agreed to remove pro-life abortion restrictions from defense funding. In fact, Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) listed funding for abortion travel as one reason he opposed the spending legislation.
So far as I can find, no outlet has clarified if the newest of Johnson’s temporary bills included that same abortion funding; with so many Democrats voting for it, it seems at least possible the abortion travel funding was still there. The text and summary of the legislation as found on Congress's website do not appear to provide abortion funding directly; the legislation does, however, fund not only Defense activities, but also Medicare and Medicaid, which cover abortion in specific circumstances. It is therefore possible that the legislation for which Ciscomani voted included abortion funding.
I recently attended the annual Tucson, Arizona, March for Life. While on the March, I was happy to see multiple representatives of Ciscomani marching too (identified by their signs and shirts), but I couldn’t help remembering the legislation for which Ciscomani voted. The congressman was not himself present, so I spoke to Ciscomani’s team after the March.
When questioned about whether the disastrous spending bill for which Ciscomani voted had any abortion funding, they were all totally stumped. In fact, they had no very clear idea at all of what was in the legislation, except something vague about ensuring veterans received their benefits. Now, one might say that volunteers for Ciscomani’s campaign would not necessarily know everything in the spending bill. But if Ciscomani is going to set himself up as pro-life, it seems to me vitally important that both he and his volunteers know if the congressman voted to spend taxpayer dollars on abortion, i.e., killing babies. That should have been one of the priorities for Ciscomani in determining whether to vote for the spending legislation. Instead, Ciscomani voted for legislation that spends massive amounts of taxpayer money the government has on many unconstitutional projects and agencies. Ciscomani should provide his constituents with clear answers on this vital subject.