Lamalfa's voting record: women's issues

How he voted: Nay. (LaMalfa voted AGAINST the measures to protect access to abortion) 

Bill Summary: The text bars many governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services (protecting telemedicine provision, limiting unnecessary delays, and preventing certain state restrictions). 

Impact: A “nay” on this bill opposes a federal statutory protection intended to preserve access to abortion care. If such federal protections are not advanced, states retain broader latitude to impose restrictions that can delay or deny access — outcomes that independent analyses link to greater barriers to time-sensitive reproductive care (especially for low-income women, rural patients, and those who must travel). In short, voting against a law that would limit state restrictions can mean maintaining or enabling legal pathways for those restrictions to remain in place, which can reduce timely access to abortion and related reproductive services.  

How he voted: Nay. (LaMalfa voted AGAINST the House-passed Right to Contraception Act in 2022). 

Bill Summary: The bill aimed to create statutory protections for an individual’s right to access contraception and for providers to provide contraception and related counseling.

Impact: A vote against this bill opposes the addition of explicit federal statutory protections for access to contraception and the rights of healthcare providers. Without such federal protections, contraception access can be more vulnerable to state-level restrictions or legal challenges; that can particularly affect women who rely on consistent, accessible contraceptive care (including low-income people, people in rural areas, and veterans). Reduced legal protections can translate to reduced practical access (clinic closures, insurance or coverage limits, or constrained provider options). 

How he voted: Nay (LaMalfa voted AGAINST a bill that protected female veterans' access to contraception through the VA).

Bill Summary: Requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide contraception without cost-sharing to eligible veterans, improving access for veterans who obtain health care through VA.

Impact: Voting against a bill to ensure no-cost contraception through the VA can leave female veterans facing cost or administrative barriers to contraception. That can result in decreased access to family planning services and increased risk of unintended pregnancy for veterans who rely on the VA, disproportionately impacting women who are socioeconomically vulnerable or live far from alternative providers.  

How he voted / position: LaMalfa voted IN FAVOR of or supported actions that penalized or restricted FDA officials or policies expanding access to mifepristone (some members used various amendments in the FY2024 Agriculture/FDA appropriations process to target FDA staff and regulatory decisions affecting medication abortion). Trackers list LaMalfa as supporting these moves. 

Summary of the amendments/bill: Several amendments in 2023 sought to reduce the authority, budgets, or positions at the FDA or to restrict FDA policy decisions that had expanded access to the abortion pill (mifepristone). Those amendments were procedural/appropriations maneuvers aimed at FDA oversight and policy.

Impact: Supporting measures that target the FDA’s ability to implement or maintain policies expanding access to mifepristone can make medication abortion harder to obtain (by increasing regulatory hurdles or undermining telemedicine/prescription access). Limiting access to medication abortion disproportionately affects people who cannot easily travel to clinics (rural women, low-income people, and those constrained by caregiving/work responsibilities). Reduced access to widely used, evidence-based medication options is a documented barrier to reproductive care.  

How he voted: Yea (LaMalfa voted IN FAVOR of the Born-Alive bill when it passed the House in January 2025).

Bill Summary: The bill specifies criminal penalties and reporting obligations for healthcare providers in instances involving infants born alive after an attempted abortion. Supporters say it ensures protections for infants; critics say it is unnecessary federal intrusion into medical practice and can be used to restrict abortion care.

Impact: Critics note that such legislation can have chilling effects on medical practice by creating criminal penalties and reporting requirements that interfere with clinicians’ discretion, potentially complicating the provision of abortion care or emergency obstetric care. Opponents argue the law can be used to further criminalize or stigmatize abortion providers and patients, which can reduce access to safe, timely reproductive health services for women in complicated pregnancies. (Both proponents’ and opponents’ analyses of the bill appear in legislative summaries and contemporaneous reporting.) 

How he voted: Nay  (LaMalfa voted AGAINST reauthorizations (2013, 2019, 2021) of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides funding and protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 

Bill Summary:  The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides critical protections and support for women who experience domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking. It funds shelters, legal aid, crisis hotlines, counseling services, and prevention programs nationwide. VAWA helps ensure survivors have access to safety, justice, and recovery resources—especially in rural and underserved areas where support is often limited.

Impact: Voting “no” makes it harder to extend or restore federal support for shelters, victim support services, legal protections, and prevention programs. Women who experience abuse in his district—especially those with fewer resources—may find fewer safe havens or fewer options to get help when they need it. 

How he voted: Yea (LaMalfa voted IN FAVOR of H.R.28 per vote trackers). 

Bill Summary: The bill addresses participation in sex-segregated sports, generally prohibiting participation of individuals whose sex assigned at birth does not match “women and girls” categories in federally funded single-sex sports (i.e., policies that affect transgender athletes).

Impact: In contexts where the legislation encourages broadly enforced exclusions, it exacerbates stigma and limits participation for a subset of individuals who identify as women, and can also create legal and administrative confusion for education and athletic programs.

 In 2017, LaMalfa co-sponsored and championed a permanent federal ban on abortion funding by codifying existing “Hyde rule” restrictions into broader law (LaMalfa, 2017). That vote is not abstract. It clamps down on clinics that rely partially on federal funds to serve low-income patients, making it harder for those patients to access any reproductive services—not just abortion. 

 LaMalfa co-sponsored a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood and redirect those funds to “other women’s health providers,” a favorite conservative rhetorical maneuver (LaMalfa, 2015). But “other providers” often can’t match Planned Parenthood’s infrastructure in reproductive care (contraception, STD testing, counseling), particularly in rural settings where options are scarce. 

 LaMalfa has repeatedly opposed or not supported bills intended to protect abortion access and contraception nationwide. For instance, he voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) in the 117th Congress, which sought to remove state-level restrictions on abortion access (C-SPAN, 2022). He also aligned with efforts to block the “Right to Contraception Act,” which would have guaranteed federal protections for obtaining and using contraceptives (Reproductive Freedom for All, 2024). 

LaMalfa has supported amendments limiting Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) demonstration projects that involve abortion services (Congressional Record Index, 2025). Congress.gov For low-income women who depend on Medicaid, this narrows the flexibility states might have to expand or tailor access in underserved areas.

• Clinic deserts & travel barriers: In Northern California’s rural counties, reproductive health clinics are few and far between. A woman may need to drive 50 to 100 miles (or more) for care. LaMalfa’s restrictions amplify that hardship—if clinics lose funding or must pull services, they shut doors.

• Limited alternatives: Small, rural health providers often lack specialized reproductive services. If Planned Parenthood is defunded, there’s often no backup.
   
• Time and cost pressures: Travel, time off work, childcare, lodging—each hurdle increases cost. For women in low-wage jobs or with unpredictable schedules, added barriers can make care impossible.
   
• Political power imbalance: Women in rural and lower-income areas already have fewer advocates in statehouses or Washington. When their representative stacks against reproductive care, their voices carry little weight in policy debates.
   

LaMalfa’s votes are not a matter of abstract ideology—they translate into real, concrete losses for the people who are already most vulnerable. His approach concentrates access in wealthier or more urban areas where clinics and providers have economies of scale, leaving rural women with scraps.

When a congressman takes consistent votes against reproductive autonomy, he undermines not just policy, but citizen trust. Constituents expect representation of their needs—not a narrowing of options. For women in LaMalfa’s district, his record shifts the burden onto individuals to navigate increasingly hostile rules.

Moreover, these votes reinforce social inequality: wealthier women can more easily navigate, travel, or pay out of pocket for care. Poorer women—and especially rural women—are locked out. That’s not equality under law; it’s structural suppression of reproductive choice.

Finally, by sidelining protections and access, LaMalfa provides ammunition for further rollback of civil liberties. Once the cascade begins, clinics close, legal precedents erode, and services disappear entirely. His votes are not conservative restraint—they are aggressive constriction.