Social Security legislation passed by the U.S. Senate, which would cost more than $195 billion over 10 years, now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature. (Photo by Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a broadly bipartisan bill early Saturday that would increase Social Security benefits for millions of Americans with pensions by ending two of the program’s policies in place for decades — the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset.

The legislation, which would cost more than $195 billion over 10 years, now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature. While he hasn’t released a public endorsement of the bill, extensive support in the House and Senate could signal he’s likely to support the measure becoming law.

The Senate vote was 76-20 and the House vote in November was 327-75.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said during floor debate Wednesday that a fix for the two provisions has been decades in the making, noting she held the first hearing on the issue in the upper chamber in 2003.

Collins later partnered with the late California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to introduce the first version of the bill in 2005, before working with former Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski in 2007 on another version.

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans, yet many teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two provisions,” Collins said. 

The windfall elimination provision, she said, “affects public servants who receive a pension from a job not covered by Social Security, but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits.”

The government pension offset affects people who worked in jobs that weren’t eligible for Social Security, but were eligible for a spousal benefit. That pension offset, Collins said, can reduce a spouse’s Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the non-covered pension, leading to 70% of those affected by the GPO to lose the entire Social Security benefit.

“This issue is extraordinarily important in my state of Maine because the state’s pension system does not include a Social Security component,” Collins said. “And among those most affected are Maine school teachers.”

Collins called the WEP and the GPO “an unfair, inequitable penalty.” 

Hit to trust fund

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the bill’s title made it sound like “motherhood and apple pie,” but argued it wasn’t the right approach to address the problem.

He expressed concern the bill would reduce the Social Security trust fund by an additional $200 billion during the next decade, moving up the insolvency date by six months.

“This chamber needs courage and needs to say what needs to be said — we are about to pass an unfunded $200 billion spending package for a trust fund that is likely to go insolvent over the next nine to ten years and we’re going to pretend like somebody else has to fix it,” Tillis said. “Well, when you’re a U.S. senator and you have your election certificate, that falls on us.”

Tillis said he agreed with Collins and others who support the bill that the WEP and the GPO must be fixed, but said that should be part of a larger conversation about addressing Social Security’s upcoming insolvency.

“We do not disagree with what we ultimately need to do,” Tillis said. “This is a disagreement in how to get here and how to have something that assesses the downstream risk. So it is with some trepidation that I come to the floor and criticize the good work of Sen. Collins. But I do it because there is so much riding on us getting this right and having the courage to fix Social Security over the next few years.”

Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said during floor debate Wednesday that people who paid into Social Security for the required amount of time should receive their full benefits. 

“Social Security we know is a bedrock of our middle class — it’s retirement security that Americans pay into and earn over a lifetime,” Brown said. “You pay in for 40 quarters, you pay in essentially for 10 years. You’ve earned it. It should be there when you retire.”

Brown said it “makes no sense” that workers in certain public service jobs, like teachers, police officers and firefighters, cannot draw their full benefits. 

“They protect our communities, they teach our kids, they pay into Social Security just like everyone else,” Brown said.

How do these provisions work?

The pension offset reduces a “spousal or widow(er)’s benefits of most people who also receive pensions based on federal, state, or local government employment not covered by Social Security,” according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The windfall elimination provision changes the formula to reduce Social Security benefits for people “who are also entitled to pension benefits based on earnings from jobs that were not covered by Social Security,” the report said.

The pension offset affects about 746,000 Americans while the windfall provision affects 2.1 million.

“The share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the GPO varies widely by state,” the CRS report says. “States with a relatively larger share of GPO-affected beneficiaries are usually those with a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or those with more (Civil Service Retirement System) retirees.”

The pension offset has a disproportionate impact on Social Security beneficiaries in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Utah. 

The windfall elimination provision affects a larger percentage of residents in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington, Wyoming. 

“Similar to the GPO, the share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP varies by state,” CRS wrote. “Typically, states that have a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or more CSRS retirees have a relatively larger share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP.”

Bipartisan House support

The U.S. House voted 327-75 in November to approve the four-page bill, sponsored by Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves and Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger.

Graves said during floor debate that for 40 years, Social Security worked by “treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers.”

“These are police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants,” Graves said at the time. “I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked.”

Spanberger called the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset “two misguided provisions that were added to the Social Security Act in 1983 (and) have denied Americans the retirement security they worked for and expected to receive.”

“For more than 40 years, public servants have tirelessly implored their representatives in Congress to listen to their stories and to correct this glaring injustice,” Spanberger said. “Today, for the first time, Congress will vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, to repeal the WEP and the GPO, and to finally put an end to this theft.”

Opposition to bill

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the two provisions affect around 4% of all Social Security beneficiaries, more than 60% of whom are concentrated in 10 states.

The two provisions, he said, “were put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security.”

“Unfortunately, these policies still result in overly generous benefits for some while unfairly penalizing others,” Smith said, before arguing the bill wasn’t the right way to address the two provisions. 

Smith said that getting rid of the two provisions “without a replacement potentially trades unfair treatment for preferential treatment.”

He also expressed concern about how pulling more money from the Social Security trust fund would impact solvency. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $195.65 billion during the next 10 years and wrote in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that it would likely move up the Social Security insolvency date by six months.

“If H.R. 82 was enacted, the balance of the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) trust fund would, CBO projects, be exhausted roughly half a year earlier than it would be under current law,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote. “The agency estimates that under current law, the balance of the OASI trust fund would be exhausted during fiscal year 2033.”

The Social Security trustees report for 2024 says that the program will be able to pay full benefits until 2035. After that, if Congress hasn’t brokered a solution, Social Security would be able to pay about 83% of benefits. 

Wisconsin Republican Eric Hovde admitted Tuesday that he lost the U.S. Senate race to Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin, but refused to concede and instead repeated misleading claims about the election while he considers a recount.

Hovde preleased a video saying he wanted to gather more information and assess whether to seek a recount. But in a later interview on 1130-AM radio, Hovde admitted he lost while still stopping short of conceding.

“I will definitely pick myself up and move on and fight for our wonderful country and state, which is why I got into this whole thing,” Hovde said. “It’s the most painful loss I’ve ever experienced.”

Hovde can request a recount because his margin of defeat was less than 1 percentage point, at about 29,000 votes. But he hasn’t said yet whether he will request one, explaining in a video directed at his supporters that he wants to review all of the information and options that are available.

“This is a difficult decision because I want to honor your support and, at the same time, bring closure to this election for our state,” Hovde said in the video posted on the social media platform X.

Hovde pointed to what he claimed were irregularities with the vote results. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the election, the results of which are still being reviewed by counties before they submit the canvassed totals to the state by Nov. 19 for certification by Dec. 1.

Democrats, and even some Republicans, immediately called out Hovde for what they said was a perpetuation of lies about the integrity of the election.

“Stop trying to erode trust in our elections (and I say that as someone who supported Hovde),” said Jim Villa, a longtime Republican who previously worked in the Legislature and Milwaukee county executive’s office under Scott Walker before Walker became governor.

“That grift needs to stop!” Villa posted on X.

Baldwin campaign spokesperson Andrew Mamo accused Hovde of “sowing doubt about our very democracy.”

“Leaders on both sides of the aisle should condemn the lies he’s spreading and the pathetic campaign he continues to run,” Mamo said. “Tammy Baldwin has won this race and there is only one thing for Eric Hovde to do: concede.”

John D. Johnson, a Marquette University researcher and data scientist, reacted to Hovde’s video on X by saying, “Reckless disregard for the actual facts here.”

Hovde also raised concerns about precincts in Milwaukee where turnout was higher than the number of registered voters posted on the county’s website. That’s because the original number posted didn’t account for people who registered to vote on Election Day, something that happened in both Republican and Democratic parts of the state in the election.

The bipartisan Milwaukee Election Commission put out a statement refuting Hovde’s “baseless claims.” The commission said it was “fully confident that Mr. Hovde’s accusations lack any merit.”

Andrew Iverson, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party, said that “Hovde has the right to request a recount and pursue legal remedies to address whatever concerns he may have regarding the election.”

The Associated Press called the race for Baldwin on Nov. 6 and she declared victory on Thursday.

Although there is no evidence of wrongdoing in the election, many Hovde supporters have questioned a surge in votes for Baldwin that were reported by Milwaukee around 4:30 a.m. the morning after the election. Those votes put Baldwin over the top.

The votes were the tabulation of absentee ballots from Milwaukee. Those ballots are counted at a central location and reported all at once, often well after midnight on Election Day. Elections officials for years have made clear that those ballots are reported later than usual because of the sheer number that have to be counted and the fact that state law does not allow for processing them before polls open.

Republicans and Democrats alike, along with state and Milwaukee election leaders, warned in the days and weeks leading up to the election that the Milwaukee absentee ballots would be reported late and cause a huge influx of Democratic votes.

The reporting of those absentee ballots swung the 2020 presidential election to President Joe Biden, fueling baseless conspiracy theories that the election had been stolen from Donald Trump.

This year, the number of Democratic absentee votes in Milwaukee was not enough to sway the race for Vice President Kamala Harris, but it did put Baldwin over the top.

Hovde said before those ballots arrived that it “appeared” he had won and since last Wednesday, “numerous parties” had reached out to him about alleged inconsistencies.

But on election night, Republican strategists posted on X that Hovde was likely to fall behind Baldwin once the absentee votes from Milwaukee and other Democratic-heavy cities were posted. That is what happened.

To seek a recount, Hovde would have to request one within three days after the last county completed its canvass of the vote. Those are due by Nov. 19, but counties could complete the task sooner.

Hovde, a multimillionaire bank owner and real estate developer, first ran for Senate in 2012 but lost in the Republican primary. He was backed by Trump this year and poured millions of dollars of his own money into his campaign.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Republican Eric Hovde refuses to concede to Tammy Baldwin in US Senate race is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

  The Dome of the U.S. Capitol Building is visible as protective fencing is erected around construction for the 2025 inauguration platform on the West Front on Capitol Hill on Sept. 17, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The country’s next president will need a friendly Congress to make their policy dreams a reality, but control of the two chambers remains deeply uncertain with just weeks until Election Day — and whether the outcome will be a party trifecta in the nation’s capital.

Recent projections tilt in favor of Republicans taking the U.S. Senate, an already closely divided chamber that is sure to be near evenly split again next Congress.

And though Vice President Kamala Harris injected a jolt of energy into the Democratic Party, prognosticators still say the prizewinner of the House is anybody’s guess.

“The House is highly close and competitive, and really could go either way.  And I say the same thing about the presidential race,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told States Newsroom on Thursday.

A ‘district-by-district slug fest’ 

Control of the 435-seat House remains a toss-up, with competitive races in both the seven swing states and in states that will almost certainly have no bearing on who wins the top of the ticket.

Sabato’s, an election prognosticator, currently ranks nine Republican seats of the roughly 30 competitive races as “toss-up” seats for the party — meaning the GOP incumbents are locked in competitive races.

The GOP has held a slim majority this Congress, and Democrats only need to net four seats to gain control.

“It really is right on the razor’s edge,” Kondik said. “It’s pretty crazy that, you know, we’ve had two straight elections with just 222-seat majorities. And it’s pretty rare historically for there to be, you know, majorities that small twice in a row — unprecedented.

“Usually you’d have one side or the other breaking out to a bigger advantage, and I think both sides are viewing this, really, as a district-by-district slug fest.”

Sabato’s adjusted its ratings on five races Thursday, including moving Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska to the “toss-up” category from a safer “leans Democratic.” Kondik also nudged the race for Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York to “leans Republican” from “toss up.”

“The big ones are probably Peltola, and then Mike Lawler, who holds one of the bluest seats held by a Republican, but I moved him to ‘leans R.’ It seems pretty clear to me that he’s in a decent position,” Kondik said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s fundraising arm for House races, announced in June nearly $1.2 million in ad buys in Alaska. The organization launched a new ad in the state this month that accuses Peltola of not supporting veterans.

It’s always about Pennsylvania

In addition to Peltola, Kondik ranks nine other Democratic incumbents — of the nearly 40 competitive races — as toss-ups.

Among the toss-ups is the seat currently held by Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, a key swing state in the presidential race. Cartwright’s Republican challenger, Rob Bresnahan, runs an electrical contracting company in the northeastern Pennsylvania district that he took over from his grandfather.

Democrats are investing in the seat: Cartwright is running a new ad featuring union workers praising him, and just last week Harris hosted a rally in the district, which includes Scranton.

But the NRCC thinks they have a pretty good chance of flipping his seat.

Breshnahan’s company is “a union shop,” said NRCC head Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina. “So he can talk union talk. He’s a great candidate for us.”

“Matt Cartwright is in trouble,” Hudson said on the conservative “Ruthless Podcast” on Sept. 12.

“I think the way we’ve structured it, the type of candidates we recruited across the country, from Maine to Alaska, from Minnesota to Texas, regardless of top of the ticket, we’re going to pick up seats,” Hudson said.

Van Orden targeted in Wisconsin

But Sabato’s also nudged three seats toward the Democrats’ favor on Thursday.

Kondik moved Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin from the safety of “likely Republican” to the weaker “leans Republican” category.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sees an “important opportunity” in Van Orden’s district. The GOP congressman, who represents central and western Wisconsin, became known for his profanity-laced outburst at young Senate pages for taking photos of the Capitol rotunda.

The Democrats are running challenger Rebecca Cooke, a small business owner, in the hopes of unseating him.

“We have an incredible candidate in Rebecca Cooke (against) one of the most extreme, which is saying a lot, Republicans in the House,” DelBene told reporters on a call Monday.

“We have put Rebecca Cooke on our Red-to-Blue list and are strongly supporting her campaign. She’s doing a great job, and this absolutely is a priority for us,” DelBene said, referring to the DCCC’s list of 30 candidates that receive extra fundraising support.

DelBene said she’s confident in the Democrats’ chances to flip the House, citing healthy coffers and revived interest.

“We have seen huge enthusiasm all across the country. We have seen people, more and more people turning out to volunteer, to knock on doors, to make phone calls,” she said.

Democrats’ cash ‘flooding,’ NRCC chief says

Erin Covey, a House analyst with The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, wrote on Sept. 5 that Democrats have a brighter outlook after Harris assumed the top of the ticket, though November remains a close call.

“Now, polling conducted by both parties largely shows Harris matching, or coming a few points short of, Biden’s 2020 margins across competitive House districts,” Covey wrote.

The NRCC has taken note. During his interview on the “Ruthless Podcast,” Hudson compared Harris becoming the Democrats’ new choice for president as a “bloodless coup,” and said the enthusiasm she’s sparked is a cause for concern for Republicans. Democratic delegates nominated Harris, in accordance with party rules, to run for the Oval Office after Biden dropped out in late July.

“A lot of people, even Democrats, you know, just weren’t comfortable voting for Joe Biden. With Kamala on the ticket, we saw a surge in Democrats coming home and having the enthusiasm,” Hudson said.

Hudson said he also worries about Democrats’ fundraising numbers.

“The one thing that keeps you awake at night is the Democrat money. It’s flooding,” Hudson said. “The second quarter this year I was able to raise the most money we’ve ever raised as a committee, and the Democrats raised $7 million more. I mean, it’s just, they just keep coming. It’s like the Terminator.”

“But we don’t have to match them dollar for dollar,” Hudson said. “We’ve just got to make sure we’ve got the resources we need. And so we’ve just got to keep our pace.”

The DCCC announced Friday it raised $22.3 million in August, bringing its total for this election cycle to $250.6 million.

Senate map tilts toward GOP

Republicans are inching closer and closer to flipping the Senate red during this year’s elections, thanks to a map that favors GOP incumbents and puts Democrats on the defensive in several states.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice is widely expected to win his bid for the upper chamber, bringing Republicans up to 50 seats, as long as they hang on in Florida, Nebraska and Texas.

But Democrats will need to secure wins in several challenging states, including Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and break the 50-50 tie through a Democratic presidency — if they want to remain the majority party.

That many Democratic wins seems increasingly unlikely, though not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester is looking to secure reelection against GOP challenger Tim Sheehy, has been moved from a “toss-up” state to leaning toward Republicans by three respected analysis organizations in the last few weeks.

The Cook Political Report wrote in its ratings change earlier this month that several “public polls have shown Sheehy opening up a small, but consistent lead.”

“Democrats push back that their polling still shows Tester within the margin of error of the race, and that those are exactly the type of close races he’s won before,” their assessment said. “Tester, however, has never run on a presidential ballot in a polarized environment of this kind before — and even with his stumbles, Sheehy is still the strongest, best financed candidate he’s ever faced.”

Republicans winning Montana’s Senate seat could give them a firm, though narrow, 51-seat Senate majority.

Florida, Texas, Nebraska

That, however, would require the Republican incumbents in states like Florida and Texas — where it’s not clear if evolving trends against Republicans will continue — to secure their reelection wins.

And it would mean holding off a wild card independent candidate in the Cornhusker state.

The Cook Political Report says it’s “worth keeping an eye on a unique situation developing in Nebraska, where independent candidate Dan Osborn is challenging Republican Sen. Deb Fischer.”

CPR also noted in its analysis that Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities, which could rebalance the scales a bit, are Florida and Texas.

“Today, the Lone Star State looks like the better option because of the strengths and fundraising of Democrats’ challenger there, Rep. Colin Allred,” CPR wrote.

If Democrats do hold onto 50 seats, through whatever combination of wins and losses shakes out on election night, majority control would depend on whichever candidate wins the presidential contest.

Given the close nature of several Senate races, it is entirely possible control of that chamber isn’t known until after recounts take place in the swing states.

Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Gary Peters, D-Mich., said during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that he’s known all along Democratic candidates will be in “very right races.”

“In a nutshell, I’m optimistic,” Peters said. “I believe we’re going to hold the majority. I feel good about where we are. We’re basically where I thought we would be after Labor Day in really tight races. None of this is a surprise to us. Now we just have to run our playbook, be focused, be disciplined.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, led this cycle by Montana Sen. Steve Daines, is confident the GOP will pick up the Senate majority following November’s elections.

The group highlighted a Washington Post poll this week showing a tie between Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and GOP candidate Dave McCormick in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

NRSC Spokesman Philip Letsou sent out a written statement after the poll’s release that Casey is in the “race for his life…because Pennsylvania voters know Casey’s lockstep support for Kamala Harris and her inflationary, anti-fracking agenda will devastate their economy. Pennsylvanians have had enough of liberal, career politicians like Casey and Harris.”

No change in filibuster in sight

The GOP acquisition of a handful of seats would still require the next Republican leader to constantly broker deals with Democrats, since the chamber is widely expected to retain the legislative filibuster.

That rule requires at least 60 senators vote to advance legislation toward final passage and is the main reason the chamber rarely takes up partisan bills.

A Republican sweep of the House, Senate and White House for unified government would give them the chance to pass certain types of legislation through the fast-track budget reconciliation process they used to approve the 2017 tax law.

How wide their majorities are in each chamber will determine how much they can do within such a bill, given Republicans will still have centrist members, like Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins, balancing the party against more far-right policy goals.

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth speaks about access to in vitro fertilization on the steps of the Capitol building on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024, along with other Senate Democrats holding photos of families who benefited from IVF. At right, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., holds a photo of Duckworth’s family that includes Duckworth’s children, born with the help of IVF. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The closely divided U.S. Senate gridlocked Tuesday over the best way to provide nationwide protections for in vitro fertilization, despite lawmakers from both political parties maintaining they want to do so.

Republicans voted against advancing a Democratic bill that could have prevented states from enacting “harmful or unwarranted limitations” on the procedure and bolstered access for military members and veterans. Two Republicans voted with Democrats — Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

Wisconsin’s Republican Sen. Ron Johnson voted against the measure and Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin voted for it.

That came just a short time after Senate Democrats — who narrowly control the chamber — in a procedural move blocked a GOP bill from Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to any state that bans IVF.

The 51-44 vote that prevented Democrats’ legislation from moving toward a final vote followed numerous floor speeches and press conferences, including by the Harris-Walz presidential campaign, that sought to elevate the issue ahead of the November elections. The measure needed 60 votes to advance.

“This is a chance for my colleagues across the aisle to put their votes where their mouths have been,” said Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the bill’s sponsor and a mom of two children born as a result of IVF. “They say they support IVF. Here you go — vote on this.”

Duckworth said the legislation would provide critical IVF services to U.S. military members and veterans, many of whom experience infertility or experience difficulty having children due to their service.

“It allows our military men and women, prior to a deployment into a combat zone, to preserve and freeze their genetic material; so that should they come home with injuries that result in them becoming infertile, they will have already preserved their genetic material so that they can, themselves, start those beautiful families they wanted,” Duckworth said.

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris released a written statement following the vote rebuking GOP senators for blocking the bill.

“Every woman in every state must have reproductive freedom,” Harris wrote. “Yet, Republicans in Congress have once again made clear that they will not protect access to the fertility treatments many couples need to fulfill their dream of having a child.”

Republicans blocked Democrats’ bill earlier this year. But Senate leadership scheduled another vote after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reignited the issue in August when he said his administration would mandate health insurance companies pay for IVF — a significant break with how the GOP has approached the issue.

“We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump said during an interview with NBC News. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”

Alabama ruling

Democrats began speaking at length about preserving access to IVF earlier this year after the Alabama state Supreme Court issued an opinion in February that frozen embryos constitute children under state law.

That ruling forced all the state’s IVF clinics to halt their work until the state legislature passed a bill providing criminal and civil protections for those clinics.

Democrats have since argued that legislating the belief life begins at conception, which is championed by most conservative Republicans, is at odds with access to IVF, which typically freezes more embryos than would be implanted.

Those frozen embryos can be preserved or discarded, depending on the patient’s wishes, the clinic’s policies and state law. Some conservatives believe that discarding shouldn’t be legal or are opposed to the process altogether.

The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, voted earlier this year to oppose IVF, writing in a resolution that couples should consider adoption and that the process “engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life.”

“We grieve alongside couples who have been diagnosed with infertility or are currently struggling to conceive, affirm their godly desire for children, and encourage them to consider the ethical implications of assisted reproductive technologies as they look to God for hope, grace, and wisdom amid suffering,” it stated.

Senate Democrats’ press for IVF protections has gone hand-in-hand with their efforts to bolster other reproductive rights, like access to birth control and abortion.

The issues could play a significant role in determining the outcome of the presidential election this November as well which political party controls the House and Senate.

Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance missed Tuesday’s vote, but voted against advancing Democrats’ IVF bill when it was on the floor in June.

IVF bill from Cruz, Britt

Before the Senate held a vote on Democrats’ bill, Cruz asked for quick approval of an IVF bill he and Britt introduced earlier this year.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray blocked his unanimous consent request.

During debate on that bill, Britt questioned why Democrats haven’t scheduled a recorded vote on her legislation, saying it could get the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage.

“Today, we have an opportunity to act quickly and overwhelmingly to protect continued nationwide IVF access for loving American families,” Britt said. “Our bill is the only bill that protects IVF access while safeguarding religious liberty.”

The Britt-Cruz legislation has three co-sponsors, including Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis, Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker.

Murray said the Britt-Cruz bill didn’t address what would happen in states that legislate fetal personhood, which she called “the biggest threat to IVF.”

“It is silent on whether states can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person,” Murray said. “Or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common, necessary part of the IVF process.”

Cruz tried to pass his legislation through the unanimous consent process, which allows any one senator to ask for approval. Any one senator can then block that request from moving forward — as Murray did. There is no recorded vote as part of the UC process.

Cruz previously asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill in June, but was blocked then as well.

Legal protections

Democrats’ 64-page bill would have provided legal protections for anyone seeking fertility treatment, including IVF, and for the health care professionals providing that type of care.

It would have barred state and federal governments from “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements” on IVF access.

The legislation would have bolstered fertility treatment coverage for members of the military and veterans, as well as their spouses, partners, or gestational surrogates.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine supports Democrats’ legislation. Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer Sean Tipton wrote in a statement released this week that Democrats’ IVF bill would “protect the rights of Americans to seek the medical services they may need to have children and ensure no healthcare provider faces legal consequences for trying to help their patients as they seek to build their families.”

“This legislation also increases access to IVF treatments for all Americans by mandating that employer-sponsored insurance plans and other public insurance plans cover fertility treatment,” Tipton wrote. “Significantly, it would ensure the federal government does right by its own employees by providing coverage for active-duty military, veterans, and civilian staff.”

Embryologist Ric Ross holds a dish with human embryos at the La Jolla IVF Clinic Feb. 28, 2007 in La Jolla, California. (Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate will vote for a second time next week on legislation from Democrats that would bolster support for in vitro fertilization, though it’s unlikely GOP lawmakers will reverse course from their previous opposition.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the revote Thursday afternoon, saying he hopes that Republicans will join with Democrats to advance the measure toward final passage. The bill would ensure patients have access to in vitro fertilization.

“Republicans can’t claim to be pro-family on one hand, only to block pro-family policies like federal protections for IVF and the child tax credit,” Schumer said. “But that’s just what they did this summer and I hope we get a different outcome when we vote for a second time.”

The Senate last held a procedural vote on the bill in June, though it didn’t come close to the 60 senators needed to advance.

The 48-47 procedural vote was mostly along party lines with Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski breaking with Republicans to support moving forward with debate and a final passage vote.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued against advancing the bill during debate, saying the legislation wasn’t necessary since no state currently barred IVF.

“Today’s vote is disingenuous — pushing a bill haphazardly drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all who may pursue IVF treatments,” Cassidy said at the time.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray spoke in support of approving the legislation, saying in June it shouldn’t be “controversial, especially if Republicans are serious about” supporting access to IVF.

“As we saw in Alabama, the threat to IVF is not hypothetical, it is not overblown and it is not fearmongering,” Murray said.

Alabama state legislators earlier this year had to provide criminal and civil protection to IVF clinics after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos constituted children under state law.

The opinion from Alabama’s justices temporarily led all IVF clinics within the state to close their doors to patients, wreaking havoc on couples hoping to start or grow their families through the complicated, emotionally draining and often expensive process.

The issue also has emerged in the presidential race, and was fought over in the Sept. 10 debate by the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump.