As Carnahan gains on Blunt in Missouri, some analysts give her increasingly positive odds in the race for Senate, while others point to the fact that out-of-state Republican groups, including one run by Karl Rove, will spend well over $1 million to support Blunt in the last two weeks of the race.
Polls indicate that Robin Carnahan, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Missouri, has pulled within 5 points of Republican Congressman Roy Blunt. A new poll by Public Policy Polling shows Blunt’s lead has narrowed to 46-41, in contrast with the 45-38 advantage he had in August.
Other analysts, however, suggest that Carnahan should have been much further ahead by now, and faces a two-week period during which Karl Rove and others will be spending out-of-state funds in Missouri to carry Blunt to victory.
The seat is a potential pick up for the Democrats in the Senate.
The PPP analysis points to two things driving the increased competitiveness of the race.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
One, Democratic voters are getting more focused on the election as it comes closer.
In August only 33% of those describing themselves as likely to vote in November were Democrats, while 38% were Republicans. Now the likely voter pool is composed of 36% Democrats and 35% Republicans. While Republicans have been extremely excited about voting all year, many Democrats are just now starting to tune into the election. This is causing many races across the country, including this one, to tighten down the stretch.
Two, Blunt’s support among Democrats has declined and Carnahan’s support from Republicans has increased slightly.
When PPP last looked at this race there was a large gap in the two candidates’ crossover support, with Blunt getting 11% of Democrats while Carnahan had only 4% Republican support. Now Blunt is getting just 8% of Democrats with Carnahan up to 6% of Republicans, essentially erasing the gap in party unity that is causing many Democratic candidates across the country trouble. Blunt continues to lead overall thanks to a 46-31 advantage with independents.
Carnahan, currently Secretary of State of Missouri. She is pro-choice, has championed consumer protections and financial protections for seniors. She helped create and administers Safe at Home, a program to protect the homes of victims of domestic violence and stalking, which, according to Pema Levy of Change.org, has helped keep 700 Missourians safe over the last three years.
Carnahan comes from a long line of politicians. Her brother is Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), and her father, Mel Carnahan, served as governor and was running for Senate when he died in a plane crash in 2000. Her mother, Jean, served two years in the Senate after Mel Carnahan’s death.
The Republican party, on the other hand, is working hard to elect Blunt, a former top-deputy to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Blunt is anti-choice on every relevant issue and has a 0 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
GOP consultants also claim their side will have the advantage with get-out-the-vote operations this year in Missouri. Traditionally considered a Democratic strong suit in most federal races, Republicans are targeting turnout in once-sleepy Congressional districts represented by Blunt and Reps. Ike Skelton (D) and Jo Ann Emerson (R).
And Republicans are targeting roughly 100 state legislature districts and a county-wide executive seat in St. Louis.
“All of those have their own turnout mechanisms … that’s giving us a great deal of synergy in the hinterlands,” another Republican consultant said. “We feel very good about the turnout mechanism, but like I tell all of the candidates, you can’t let up now.”
By contrast, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled its funding for an advertising campaign in a move that was interpreted to convey lack of confidence by the party that Carnahan can win. But, CQ notes that “Many Democrats still consider the state as a potential Senate pickup opportunity, a Democratic operative said, and they’re not alone in their uncertainty about Missouri.”
A Karl Rove-linked group is expected to spend more than $1.5 million supporting Blunt in the next two weeks leading up to Nov. 2, the source said, which shows “Republican groups are still very much invested in the race.”
PPP nonetheless puts Carnahan within the margin of error and picking up support and if her party’s base continues to awaken in the final 15 days before the election “this race could provide a surprise.”
Though the senate's Republican-led Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life stopped short of outright accusing Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri (PPSLR) of selling fetal tissue, its members pointed to what they called "serious gaps" in the affiliate's record as an indication of potential wrongdoing.
A special Missouri State Senate committee released the results of its months-long investigation of a local Planned Parenthood affiliate Tuesday, continuing to push the notion that the reproductive health-care provider could be breaking the law in its handling of fetal tissue.
In September, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster affirmed that Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri (PPSLR) was handling fetal tissue in accordance with Missouri law.
Even so, though the senate’s Republican-led Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life stopped short this week of outright accusing the St. Louis clinic of selling fetal tissue, its members pointed to what they called “serious gaps” in the affiliate’s record as an indication of potential wrongdoing.
The committee, which formed last year in response to widely discredited Center for Medical Progress (CMP) videos accusing Planned Parenthood ofprofiting from fetal tissue donations, also released a nine-page report outlining its investigation. CMP’s founder, David Daleiden, was indicted earlier this year on felony charges in connection with the videos’ creation.
The committee’s chairperson, Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia), said in a Tuesday press conference that Planned Parenthood could be obfuscating critical information and criticized the clinic of “sloppy record keeping.”
Schaefer, who also panned the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down provisions of an anti-abortion law in Texas, zeroed in on PPSLR’s use of formalin, a preservative that renders fetal tissue donation impossible.
The senate committee, Schaefer said, could not determine whether samples of the affiliate’s fetal tissue sent to the state pathologist had been immersed in formalin and speculated that Planned Parenthood could be using the preservative in a way that allows fetal tissue to be used illegally. The written report noted that although the health-care provider is only legally required to send a “representative sample” to the pathologist, PPSLR often delivered the entire fetus—suggesting to the committee that there could somehow be a sale involved along the line.
PPSLR issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the press event and the committee’s reported findings, saying that it does not, has not, and will never sell fetal tissue.
“Today’s press conference is just more of the same, as political opportunists in the Missouri Senate signaled their desire to shame Missouri women and men, and deny them access to quality, expert, legal health care instead of focusing on the priorities of the people of our state. The time for them to move on from this sham has long since passed,” the statement read.
Ultimately, Schaefer and his peers, including Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Glendale) and Sen. Jeanie Riddle (R-Callaway County), concluded that the committee’s investigation potentiallycontradicted the attorney general’s investigation last year.
In order to conduct its investigation, the Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life had subpoenaed Planned Parenthood documents just a month after Koster cleared the St. Louis affiliate of any legal wrongdoing.
PPSLR provided the documents in May, giving senate officials until June 20 to review the information, according to a news report by KOLR-TV of southwest Missouri.
Not long before receiving the documents, the Interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life had attempted to punish Mary Kogut, president and CEO of PPSLR, with fines and jail time because the clinic refused to hand over clinic documents in attempt to protect patient privacy.
Other committee members on Tuesday criticized Planned Parenthood for allegedly endangering pregnant persons during emergencies by not writing “9-1-1” in large enough font on instruction documents for patients, and said the clinic should elaborate on its use of its digoxin in the second trimester and whether fetal tissue is injected with the drug before abortion procedures. Abortion clinics often use digoxin to comply with the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
Many Democratic lawmakers and pro-choice institutions have said the committee’s investigation is part of an ongoing attack against abortion care throughout the state. More than a dozen state and federal investigations have not found Planned Parenthood guilty of any wrongdoing.
Earlier this year, the Missouri legislature failed to pass an anti-abortion “personhood” amendment that would have led to a ballot measure in November. If approved by voters, the law would have ended legal abortion in the state by adding fetuses to the list of Missouri residents who have a “natural right to life.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte's defenders have made claims about her commitment to "strengthening women's health" through action on various measures; reproductive rights advocates point out, however, that most of these measures would have done more harm than good.
The tight race between incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and challenger Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) could help determine which party takes control of the U.S. Senate after the November elections. In recent months, a key point of contention has emerged among Ayotte’s supporters and critics: the senator’s record on reproductive rights and women’s health.
Planned Parenthood Votes released an ad in April claiming Ayotte is “bad for New Hampshire women,” signaling the continuation of the heated narrative in the lead-up to the election.Ayotte’s defenders have responded to the accusations with claims of her commitment to “strengthening women’s health” through action on various measures; reproductive rights advocates point out, however, that most of these measures would have done more harm than good.
“For months, Senator Kelly Ayotte has followed party bosses, refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. And for years, Ayotte has waited for an opportunity to push for someone to end access to safe, legal abortion and overturn Roe v. Wade,” claims the Planned Parenthood Votes ad, before playing an August 2010 clip of Ayotte advocating for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. “For New Hampshire women, the consequences of letting Kelly Ayotte play politics with the Constitution could last a lifetime.”
The $400,000 ad buy, slated to run on broadcast and cable in New Hampshire, has beenPlanned Parenthood Votes’ first on-air ad targeting a Senate race in the 2016 election cycle. The organization, a national independent expenditure political committee, is criticizing Ayotte for claiming to protect women but failing to protect reproductive rights, also drawing on her pledge to obstruct filling the vacant Supreme Court seat in the aftermath of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
“Kelly Ayotte may try to paint herself as pro-woman, but her record tells a very different story. Every chance she’s gotten she’s voted to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood and cut women off from essential health care like birth control and breast and cervical cancer screenings,” said Deirdre Schifeling, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, in a statement on the organization’s new ad. “She has been advocating for years to ban women’s access to safe, legal abortion, and it’s clear she now sees her chance in the Supreme Court process. Kelly Ayotte is refusing to do her job, and abdicating her constitutional duty, in order to push an extreme agenda that no one in New Hampshire wants.”
Ayotte’s campaign manager, Jon Kohan, meanwhile, defended the senator’s record on women’s health and rights in a press release. He wrote, “Kelly’s long record of standing up for New Hampshire women and families is clear, and she cares deeply about ensuring all women have access to health services.” The release included a bulleted list providing examples of Ayotte’s work “strengthening women’s health care,” “supporting working women,” and “protecting domestic or sexual assault victims.”
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
The claims may be familiar to those following the New Hampshire race. After Hassan announced her candidacy in October, for example, One Nation, an issue-advocacy organization that does not need to disclose where their funding comes from and is affiliated with Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC, pushed a 17-day, $1.4 million ad campaign toutingAyotte’s record on women’s health.
Hassan, on the other hand, has the support of organizations such as EMILY’s List, whose stated mission is to help elect pro-choice women into office. After endorsing the governor in the Senate race, the group added Ayotte to its “On Notice” list for “voting for anti-woman legislation and standing in the way of policies that give working families a fair shot.”
But with both sides of the race simultaneously claiming opposing positions on whether Ayotte has been good for women and reproductive rights, what is the truth?
Ayotte has made no secret of her desire to defund Planned Parenthood, and she “has shown support for defunding the organization or opposition to continued funding in at least six votes,” according to PolitiFact, though some of those votes were procedural. Though she famously chided Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for attempting to shut down the government over his crusade to strip the reproductive health provider of money in the wake of anti-choice front group Center for Medical Progress’ deceptively edited videos, it was because she didn’t view his methods as a winning strategy for accomplishing that goal—not because she didn’t believe in the cause.
In a letter to Cruz, Ayotte told the Republican presidential candidate that she too is “deeply disturbed by” CMP’s videos and doesn’t believe Planned Parenthood should have federal funding.”This callous disregard for the dignity of human life is heinous, and I do not believe taxpayer dollars should be used to fund a private organization that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year and harvests the body parts of unborn children,” wrote Ayotte. She went on to ask what Cruz’s “strategy to succeed in actually defunding Planned Parenthood” really was, given that their mutual efforts to redirect the organization’s funding to other clinics had failed.
Planned Parenthood does not use its federal funding to provide abortions; its fetal tissue donation program has been cleared of wrongdoing in multiple state and federal investigations. And despite claims from conservatives, including Ayotte, that other facilities could provide Planned Parenthood’s patients with health care should the organization lose funding, the Guttmacher Institute found that “credible evidence suggests this is unlikely. In some areas, Planned Parenthood is the sole safety-net provider of contraceptive care.”
“Our analysis shows unequivocally that Planned Parenthood plays a major role in delivering publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies to women who are in need of such care nationwide,” the Guttmacher Institute concluded.
Ayotte has also supported numerous other anti-choice restrictions and legislation, including a 2015 20-week abortion ban based on the medically unfounded claim that fetuses feel pain at this point in pregnancy.
According to NPR, Ayotte has “been a hero to anti-abortion activists since 2005, when as New Hampshire attorney general she defended a parental notification law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.” The law required doctors to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion at least 48 hours prior to the procedure, and contained no exceptions for the health of the patient. The Court ultimately ruled against Ayotte, affirming that states may not enact abortion laws that don’t protect women’s health and safety.
National Right to Life found that the New Hampshire senator voted “with” the anti-choice organization in all 14 of the scored votes from 2012 to 2015it examined.
In 2012,Ayotte co-sponsored the failed “Blunt Amendment,” which would have allowed exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit for any employers or insurers that had moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. And in a 2014 commentary for the Wall Street Journal,Ayotte and Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) defended the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which grants someemployers the right to deny contraceptive coverage to their staff based on the owner’s religious beliefs, falsely claiming that the ruling did “not take away women’s access to birth control.”
Ayotte’s campaign is quick to point to legislation sponsored by the senator that would have allowed over-the-counter contraception as proof that she cares aboutwomen’s health. Reproductive health advocates, however, called Ayotte’s Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act a “sham” when it was introduced in 2015. Though the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) generally supports over-the-counter birth control, the organization’s president Dr. Mark S. DeFrancesco, said in a statement that Ayotte’s measure “would actually make more women have to pay for their birth control, and for some women, the cost would be prohibitive.”
Paid leave is yet another issue in which Ayotte has put forth legislation in the name of helping women. Ayotte introduced the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act of 2015 in March of that year, claiming it would “allow greater flexibility for workers who are looking to better balance their work-life demands.” Analysis by ThinkProgress, however, found that the measure “could weaken already weak rules that require workers to be paid extra for working extra hours, thus ensuring that workweeks don’t grow out of control and employees are compensated fairly.”
Earlier in 2015, Ayotte signed on as a co-sponsor of the Working Families Flexibility Act. According to a statement from the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF) condemning the legislation, the act claimed to “give hourly workers more flexibility and time with their loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off, rather than time-and-a-half wages, as compensation for working more than 40 hours in one week.” However, the bill did “not promote family friendly or flexible workplaces,” explained the nonprofit organization in a fact sheet. “Instead, it would erode hourly workers’ ability to make ends meet, plan for family time, and have predictability, stability, and true flexibility at work.”
Ayotte’s record on equal pay has been similarly debunked by advocates. One of the policies highlighted by Ayotte’s campaign in the wake of Planned Parenthood Votes’ ad was the senator’sintroduction of the Gender Advancement In Pay (GAP) Act in September 2015, which she reintroduced ahead of Equal Pay Day thisApril. The measure was meant to make clear that “employers must pay men and women equal wages for equal work, without reducing the opportunity for employers to reward merit,” according to a press release from Ayotte’s office upon the initial release of the bill.
Critics argued that Ayotte’s bill was nothing other than an election-year stunt. New Hampshire state Sen. Donna Soucy (D-Manchester) told NH1 News that Ayotte’s move was an attempt to look “for some cover … in an effort to be more in line with” New Hampshire voters, after Ayotte voted against other fair pay measures. However, Soucy said, the legislation didn’t really address the issue of pay equity. “Sen. Ayotte’s bill attempts to create paycheck fairness but doesn’t in fact do so because employers could preclude their employees from discussing what they make with their fellow employees,” claimed Soucy.
Similar arguments were made when Ayotte co-sponsored another equal pay measure, the Workplace Advancement Act, with Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) in April 2015. Though the legislation would ban employers from retaliating against their staff, it failed to garner support from Democrats. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the bill would have done “more harm than good” as it “entirely [ignored] the many loopholes and inadequacies in current equal pay laws and simply [stated] that pay discrimination ‘violates existing law.'”
Their arguments are bolstered by Ayotte’s repeated votesagainst the federal Paycheck Fairness Act, though as Politifact again pointed out, some of these votes were procedural and not against the bill itself. Ayotte did cast one vote in favor of ending debate on the measure and advancing it; the fact-checking site noted, though, that Ayotte’s office reportedly did so in the ultimately denied hopes of changing the bill.
Had it passed, the legislation would have updated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to include protections such as prohibiting retaliation against employees who share their salary and strengthening penalties for those who violate the law. Ayotte claims she voted against the measure because it “could reduce the ability of employers to award merit pay for good performance and limit the opportunity for women to have flexible work schedules,” according to a press release on the matter.
Speaking at a town hall event in 2013, Ayotte had previously justified her vote against equal pay legislation by asserting that it “created a lot of additional burdens that would … make it more difficult for job creators to create jobs.” The New Hampshire senator went on to add that there were already laws in place that could help address the issue.
There are, however, some examples of Ayotte supporting and introducing legislation that would help women. In June 2015, Ayotte co-sponsored the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to protect pregnant people from workplace discrimination. Though the legislation never came to a vote, it would have helped “end … discrimination and promote healthy pregnancies and the economic security of pregnant women and their families,” according to the NPWF. That same year, the New Hampshire senator co-sponsored the Protect Access to Lifesaving Screenings (PALS) Act, bipartisan legislation that would have safeguarded access to free annual mammograms for women ages 40 to 74. Ayotte co-sponsored the bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act in 2014 and 2015, which, according to Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s website, would “protect students and boost accountability and transparency at colleges and universities” when it comes to sexual assault. Ayotte also co-sponsoredthe Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013 to address the issue in the military.
Overall, Ayotte has signed onto or supported numerous pieces of legislation that at face value seem to promote reproductive health and women’s rights. Further examination shows, however, that—with a few exceptions—they largely failed to hold up to scrutiny. While Ayotte’s campaign alleges that many of her measures would have helped women and families, analysis suggests that her conservative solutions to addressing these issues often would have made the problems worse. This, coupled with the senator’s fierce anti-choice advocacy, will no doubt keepthis portion of Ayotte’s record under tight observation as November’s election approaches.