Here’s the List of Every Republican Who Voted to Block IVF—Again

Senate Republicans for the second time blocked a measure on Tuesday to protect in vitro fertilization, with only two members of the party backing the bill.

Hard-line abortion opponents on the right have sought to restrict and even ban IVF ever since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos are children. Republicans have openly supported restrictions to IVF alongside a national abortion ban.

The Right to IVF Act also failed to pass two months ago in a 48–47 vote. In a dismal sign of progress, the bill on Tuesday failed by a 51–44 measure. Like the last time, only two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted for the bill Tuesday, with every single Democrat present voting in support.

This time, five senators were listed as “not voting” by the Senate website: Democrat Cory Booker (New Jersey), independent Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Republican Mike Rounds (South Dakota), Republican Thom Tillis (North Carolina), and Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance (Ohio).

Here’s the full list of Republicans who voted against the bill:

• John Barrasso—Wyoming
• Marsha Blackburn—Tennessee
• John Boozman—Arkansas
• Mike Braun—Indiana
• Katie Britt—Alabama
• Ted Budd—North Carolina
• Shelley Moore Capito—West Virginia
• Bill Cassidy—Louisiana
• John Cornyn—Texas
• Tom Cotton—Arkansas
• Kevin Cramer—North Dakota
• Mike Crapo—Idaho
• Ted Cruz—Texas
• Steve Daines—Montana
• Joni Ernst—Iowa
• Deb Fischer—Nebraska
• Lindsey Graham—South Carolina
• Chuck Grassley—Iowa
• Bill Hagerty—Tennessee
• Josh Hawley—Missouri
• John Hoeven—North Dakota
• Cindy Hyde-Smith—Mississippi
• Ron Johnson—Wisconsin
• John Neely Kennedy—Louisiana
• James Lankford—Oklahoma
• Mike Lee—Utah
• Cynthia Lummis—Wyoming
• Roger Marshall—Kansas
• Mitch McConnell—Kentucky
• Jerry Moran—Kansas
• Markwayne Mullin—Oklahoma
• Rand Paul—Kentucky
• Pete Ricketts—Nebraska
• James E. Risch—Idaho
• Mitt Romney—Utah
• Marco Rubio—Florida
• Eric Schmitt—Missouri
• Rick Scott—Florida
• Tim Scott—South Carolina
• Dan Sullivan—Alaska
• John Thune—South Dakota
• Tommy Tuberville—Alabama
• Roger Wicker—Mississippi
• Todd Young—Indiana

During a congressional hearing on hate crimes Tuesday, Republican Senator John Kennedy accused Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute, of supporting terrorism.

Berry was invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the rise in hate crimes against Arab and Jewish Americans since October 7. Instead of hearing her thoughts, the Louisiana senator advanced an antagonistic and acrid line of questioning.

“You support Hamas, do you not?” asked Kennedy. Berry replied, to the applause of some in attendance, “Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support, but you asking the executive director of the Arab American Institute that question very much puts the focus on the issue of hate in our country.”

Kennedy continued, “You support Hezbollah too, don’t you?” Over interjections from the senator, Berry said, “Again, I find this line of questioning extraordinarily disappointing, Senator. You have Arab American constituents that you represent.… The answer is I don’t support violence, whether it’s Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other entity that invokes it.”

“You can’t bring yourself to say no, can you?” Kennedy persisted. “Do you support or oppose Iran, and their hatred of Jews?” Berry’s response was again interrupted by Kennedy, who cast aspersions on her for having previously criticized Congress’s decision to cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, which provides relief to Palestinians.

The move to defund UNRWA, which was based on unconfirmed Israeli allegations that 12 of its staff had been involved in the October 7 Hamas attack, was widely criticized by Palestinian rights activists, including Berry—who began explaining that her criticism was based on foreign policy. Kennedy again cut in: “Let me ask you one more time, you support Hamas don’t you? You support UNRWA and Hamas, don’t you?”

“Sir, I think it’s exceptionally disappointing that you’re looking at an Arab American witness before you, and saying, ‘You support Hamas.’ I do not support Hamas,” Berry responded, before another interruption from Kennedy. “You know what’s disappointing to me,” the senator said. “You can’t bring yourself to say you don’t support UNRWA, you don’t support Hamas, you don’t support Hezbollah, and you don’t support Iran. You should hide your head in a bag”—a comment that elicited gasps from attendees.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has condemned Kennedy for his display of anti-Arab bigotry and deployment of “common anti-Arab and Islamophobic stereotypes during his questioning.”

In a blog post from 2012, J.D. Vance, then a law student at Yale, criticized the Republican Party for being “openly hostile to non-whites” and alienating “Blacks, Latinos, [and] the youth.”

Four years later, he asked his former college professor to take down the post, titled “A Blueprint for the GOP.”

Brad Nelson, who taught Vance when he was an undergraduate at Ohio State University, had asked his former student to contribute to the blog he ran for the Center for World Conflict and Peace. During the 2016 presidential primary, Vance asked Nelson to delete the post so he could work in Republican politics, which Nelson did, according to CNN.

The article, which is accessible on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, attacks the GOP’s immigration policies, saying from a conservative point of view, expecting the government to deport 12 million people is nonsensical.

“Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens,” the Republican vice presidential nominee wrote. “The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.”

It’s the opposite of Vance’s views now, as he seems to openly argue that immigration is bad for America, despite the fact that his wife, Usha, is the daughter of Indian immigrants. And it’s telling that this is what Vance wanted deleted from the internet when the Ohio senator has expressed far more controversial views, including on right-wing podcasts.

On one podcast in 2020, for example, Vance expressed strange views on the role of grandparents, on Indian culture, and the “postmenopausal female.” Meanwhile, two of his accounts on X still follow Hitler apologist Daryl Cooper. Yet Vance is more concerned with his own valid criticisms of the Republican Party remaining online.

Before he entered politics, Vance was critical of Donald Trump and his 2016 candidacy for president, saying that “he’s noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.” It seems like Vance wants to put his previous views of Trump, along with his old views of the GOP, behind him for the sake of political advancement, which raises the question of whether he actually believes anything he’s saying now.

Kamala Harris clung to her lackluster talking points on Israel and Gaza Tuesday as she faced questions from a panel of journalists from the National Association of Black Journalists.

Tonya Mosley of WHYY, a Philadelphia-area public radio station that co-hosted the event, turned the subject of Harris’s 45-minute live interview to Israel’s catastrophic military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 41,000 people. 

“You’ve called for a cease-fire hostage deal and a two-state solution as an end to the war for many months now. And while you’ve expressed support for Israel to defend itself, a two-state solution and a cease-fire are at odds with what [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu has said is their right to defense,” Mosley said.

“If it matters, as you say, how Israel defends itself, where do you see the line between aggression and defense? In our power as Israel’s ally to do something.” 

“OK, a lot to unpack in what you just said, so let’s start with this,” Harris replied.

“I absolutely believe that this war has to end, and it has to end as soon as possible. And the way that will be achieved is by getting a hostage deal and a cease-fire deal done. And we are working around the clock to achieve that end,” she said. 

Already, Harris’s response was essentially copy-pasted from her campaign website’s Issues page (which itself was copy-pasted from Joe Biden’s reelection site). “She and President Biden are working around the clock to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done,” the section reads. 

Here, “working around the clock” apparently serves as a kind of euphemism for “stalled talks with Netanyahu,” who has plainly said, “There is not a deal in the making.”

In total, the Harris-Walz campaign offers only three sentences about Israel and Gaza on its Issues page, and Harris seemed determined to make them stretch as far as possible in her conversation Tuesday. 

Harris reminded the audience of the 1,200 people who were killed during the October 7 massacre. “And yes, so I have said Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And—”

“But Madam Vice President,” Mosley interrupted, seemingly sensing that Harris was not on track to actually answer her question. “I think my ask is the difference between aggression and defense here.”

“No, no let me finish,” Harris said. “No, but it’s important to put it in context. Which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that.” As the vice president went on, she continued to rely on statements she’d made in the past, as opposed to offering a genuine answer to the interviewer’s question.  

Harris insisted that how Israel defends itself matters—a line she’d first delivered after speaking with Netanyahu in July and has repeated several times since. The statement implies that there are theoretically some boundaries that might limit Israel’s defense, but Harris did not deign to illuminate them—even though that was the question. 

Instead, Harris simply said, “And far too many innocent Palestianans were killed. Women and children. We have seen with horror the images coming out of Gaza. And we have to take that seriously. And we have to agree that not only must we end this war but we have to have a goal of a two-state solution because there must be stability and peace in that region.”

Harris stated that “our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination and dignity.” Another line ripped from her talking points. 

“What levers does the U.S. have to support Palestinians in their right to self-determination?” Mosley asked. “And is it even possible as Israel’s ally?”

“Well, absolutely,” Harris replied.

“I have been actively involved in meeting not only with Israeli officials but with Arab officials to talk about how we can construct a day-after scenario where we participate in ensuring those exact goals that I outlined,” Harris said. She said that there would be no reoccupation of Gaza and the “territorial lines” would remain the same. 

Harris added that while she hoped to create peace and stability, she didn’t want the kind of stability that might “empower” Iran. 

Eugene Daniels of Politico also jumped in to ask a follow-up, which, spoiler alert, went similarly unanswered. 

“Madam Vice President, just to follow up really quickly, is there a specific policy change that you as president of the United States would say you would do, that would help this along? Because you have gotten a lot of credit for emphasizing the humanity of Palestinians, but what I often hear from folks is that there is no policy change,” Daniels said. 

“Is there a specific policy change, as president, that you would do in our helping of Israel end this war?” 

“We need to get this deal done,” Harris insisted. “And we need to get it done immediately. And that is my position and that is my policy. We need to get this deal done.”

“But in the way that we send weapons, and the way we interact as their ally, are there specific policy changes?” Daniels pressed.

Harris said that she was “entirely supportive” of a U.S. pause on the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, after the U.S. had already sent at least 10,000—the same kind that were likely used to strike at least one humanitarian zone in Gaza. The U.S. is still providing Israel with 500-pound bombs. 

“There is some leverage that we have had and used,” Harris said. She said she would not disclose private conversations, but said she’d been involved in cease-fire talks with Netanyahu and officials from Qatar and Egypt.

“We are doing the work of putting the pressure on all parties involved to get the deal done. But let me be very clear also, I support Israel’s ability to defend itself. And I support the need for Palestinians to have dignity, self-determination as we move forward and get a two state-deal done.”

Several Israeli officials told ABC News that Netanyahu has purposely sabotaged negotiations to free the remaining hostages in Gaza, through his insistence that Israel retain control of the Philadelphi Corridor.

Violent, anti-immigrant rhetoric elevated by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance has led to 33 bomb threats shutting down schools and government buildings in Springfield, Ohio. But on Tuesday, the Democratic presidential nominee chose to not make a big fuss out of the local ordeal, telling reporters at the National Association of Black Journalists that she was upset to find out that elementary-age children had to be evacuated during school photo day.

“It’s a crying shame,” Harris said. “I mean, my heart breaks for this community.”

“You know, there were children, elementary school children, who, it was school photo day, you remember what that’s like?” Harris said, turning toward the audience. “Going to school on picture day, who are dressed up in their best, got all ready, knew what they were going to wear the night before, and had to be evacuated. Children!”

Harris then lamented the thoughtless rhetoric that has contributed to the volatile environment, but failed to name names for the perpetrators behind it. Instead, she explained how, as a prosecutor, she learned how her words “had meaning” and that the selection of her words could impact whether someone “was free or in prison.”

“A whole community put in fear,” Harris said.

So far, the epicenter of the conspiracy theory—Springfield—has received at least 33 bomb threats since the top of the conservative ticket started pushing the idea that Haitian immigrants were eating their neighbors’ pets.

Springfield shut down two of its elementary schools Monday, while two local colleges switched to all virtual classes and activities. The city also canceled its annual CultureFest due to safety concerns.

The city saw even more closures last week. Springfield evacuated two elementary schools and closed a middle school on Friday after receiving information from the Springfield Police Division. The day before, several other schools and a significant portion of Springfield’s government facilities—including City Hall, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Ohio License Bureau, the Springfield Academy of Excellence, and Fulton Elementary School—were shut down due to bomb threats.

On Sunday, Vance effectively admitted that the anti-immigration conspiracy was bogus. Meanwhile, multiple city officials and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have categorically denied the conspiracy.

J.D. Vance’s recent comments regarding Elon Musk’s potential role in a second Trump administration are ringing alarm bells for some.

In the past few weeks, Trump has confirmed that he plans to create a government efficiency task force headed by Musk to reform government spending. Musk has expressed enthusiasm about the role, tweeting, “I can’t wait. There is a lot of waste and needless regulation in government that needs to go.”

The purpose of the proposed task force has been an object of skepticism from budget experts. And some critics have cited Musk’s stewardship of X/Twitter—namely his decision to gut the social media company’s staff after purchasing it—as a cause for concern if the billionaire were to wield influence over vital government programs.

Last week, Vance appeared on a podcast where the host asked whether he had spoken to Musk about his “plan” regarding the task force. Vance’s answer about his talks with Musk was vague, but he specifically mentioned the Department of Defense and Social Security.

“I’ve spoken with Elon a little bit about [the task force],” Vance said, adding that the Trump campaign envisions establishing “an organization with very smart people from the private sector and a few smart people from government” that decides, “‘How are we going to fix all of the broken inefficiencies?’

“And the thing that’s complicated about this, man, is it’s going to look much different in, say, the Department of Defense versus Social Security,” he continued.

After the clip was republished by a liberal group on X, many users bristled at the implication that the world’s wealthiest man could help make key policy decisions regarding Social Security.

“Who elected Elon to decide ANYTHING?! Look what he did to Twitter & its diligent employees—at a WHIM,” posted one user. Another wrote, “Elon Musk is an arrogant Billionaire. He has no understanding or compassion for those who depend on Social Security. Everyone on Social Security should be very concerned if Musk and Trump are making decisions.”

Republicans have long publicly promised to not touch Social Security, despite creating plans that would imperil the national benefits program.

J.D. Vance can’t have it both ways.

The Republican vice presidential nominee has spent considerable time touting violent rhetoric: He has elevated a dangerous conspiracy theory that Haitian migrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and baselessly insisted that liberal leaders are the ones inciting attempted assassinations against Donald Trump. (Thomas Matthew Crooks, who shot at Trump at a Pennsylvania rally on July 13, was a registered Republican. Ryan Wesley Routh, who attempted to shoot Trump at one of his golf courses on Sunday, voted for Trump in 2016 and supported a Nikki Haley-Vivek Ramaswamy Republican ticket.)

But while speaking before a crowd in Sparta, Michigan, on Tuesday, Vance tried to frame himself as someone above the noise, blaming President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for the divisive attacks.

“We of course want to be as careful as possible and make it so we cut out the ridiculous rhetoric that I think has put a giant target on Donald Trump’s back,” Vance said. “All of us, whether we’re Republicans, Democrats, or independents, all of us can do a better job at showing respect at trying to debate our differences without going into personal attacks.

“Don’t lecture Donald Trump about softening his rhetoric after two people tried to kill him,” he continued, speaking directly to the media. “It’s ridiculous. Tell Kamala Harris. Tell Joe Biden, tell all of her surrogates who are saying things like ‘Donald Trump needs to be eliminated.’ They need to cut that crap out, or somebody’s going to get hurt.”

But just moments later, Vance was back on his usual grind. He likened Harris’s social policies to a “path of slavery,” and even challenged an imaginary assassin to break into the convention center where he was speaking to face off against a crowd of Trump supporters.

“With close to 500 patriots in the state of Michigan in this building right now and outside, I’d like to see an assassin try to come in this room,” Vance said. “They’ve come to the wrong place if you try to walk into this place right now.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is calling out Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

In a long post on X Tuesday, Greene said Johnson is “leading a fake fight that he has no intention of actually fighting,” regarding his plan to attach the SAVE Act, which would bar noncitizens from voting, to the government spending bill.

“This is classic bait and switch that will enrage the base, only one month before the election, when they find out they have been tricked and let down again,” Greene wrote. “The only way to make the SAVE Act a law would be to refuse to pass a [continuing resolution] until the Senate agrees to pass the SAVE Act and Biden agrees to sign it into law.”

Johnson announced earlier Tuesday that he would attach the SAVE Act, which is based on faulty data and seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, to a six-month continuing resolution to fund the government. That’s an obvious nonstarter for Democrats.

It’s not surprising that Greene would publicly disagree with Republican leadership, but Greene closed her message by saying, “Speaker Johnson needs to go to the Democrats, who he has worked with the entire time, to get the votes he needs to do what he is already planning to do.”

Greene is known for being one of the most right-wing members of Congress and is not known for working with Democrats or even supporting bipartisan efforts. She is better known for feuding with the opposing party, especially when she insulted Representative Jasmine Crockett’s appearance earlier this year.

While Greene has publicly supported the SAVE Act, it seems that even she is seeing the futility of attaching it to government funding while it has near-total opposition from Democrats. Her post notes that the bill could only pass with a threat to shut down the government, which, according to her, Johnson doesn’t want to happen. Plus, Greene said, the SAVE Act will be passed too late to affect any ballots in the November election, as ballots are already being prepared in several states, especially with early voting.

Johnson faces a tall order in trying to pass a resolution to fund the government, and he needs every vote he can get, particularly with a narrow Republican majority. If even extremists like Greene are saying he needs Democratic support, then the speaker should reevaluate his plan before the government shuts down.

One of the country’s most accurate polls found an impressively slim margin between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris among likely voters in Iowa.

Trump was polling at 47 percent, while Harris was polling at 43 percent among likely Iowa voters, according to the most recent survey published Sunday by the Des Moines Register/Mediacom and conducted by Selzer & Co.

While this poll shows that Trump still maintains the lead in Iowa, its results may actually indicate bad news for the former president, according to CNN’s analyst Harry Enten.

Selzer polls have a history of being uniquely accurate when it comes to Trump, while other polls fail to capture voter preferences.

In 2020, Seltzer’s Iowa survey found that Trump was up by seven points the day before polls opened, while other estimates had Biden in a far more favorable position come Election Day. Trump won by eight points. The same thing happened in 2016: The Selzer poll saw Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, and he ended up winning by nine. Trump’s two Iowa wins have been by much bigger margins than the one predicted now between the former president and Harris.

The new Selzer survey shows Trump leading Harris by only four points, with a margin of error of 3.9 points. Not only does this put her in a better position to win than Biden or Clinton, but it also shows a remarkable leap from where Biden was only three months ago. The previous Selzer poll from June had Trump beating Biden by a whopping 18 points.

What’s more, the current Selzer poll confirms the indication from other polls that the presidential race between Harris and Trump is far closer than previous cycles.

Enten also suggested that the close race between Harris and Trump in Iowa could signal a wider shift increasing her favorability in neighboring states such as Wisconsin, which has similar voter demographics. Marquette University Law School’s most recent poll put Harris at 52 percent to Trump’s 48 percent among likely Wisconsin voters.

Speaking at an event in Georgia Monday night, Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance noted the need to tone down the national political rhetoric. His remarks continue the Trump campaign’s efforts to lay this weekend’s attempt on Donald Trump’s life at the feet of the Democrats and their “inflammatory” rhetoric.

“I do think that we should take this opportunity to call for a reduction in the ridiculous and inflammatory political rhetoric coming from too many corners of our politics,” Vance said. “Look, we can disagree with one another,” he continued. “We can debate one another. But we cannot tell the American people that one candidate is a fascist and if he’s elected it is going to be the end of American democracy.”

The statement hasn’t landed well online, where many have pointed out that much of the extreme rhetoric of the day comes from Vance’s own corner. In the past week, the Trump campaign has claimed that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets and, following the assassination attempt, said that Biden and Harris are “the enemy from within,” while urging them to tamp down their rhetoric.

And Trump himself has often framed his political opponents as fascists hell-bent on destroying the country. On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump has called Kamala Harris a “radical left Marxist Communist fascist” and said of her policies: “This is Communist. This is Marxist. This is fascist.”

In May, after being convicted by a Manhattan jury on 34 felony counts, Trump said the Biden administration is “destroying our country,” adding, “We’re living in a fascist state.” In November 2023, he vowed to “root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” Even back in 2020, Trump raised the bogeyman of “left-wing fascism” in the Democratic Party, saying, “Fascists! They are fascists. Some of them, not all of them, but some of them. But they’re getting closer and closer.”

While the Trump campaign may, in a dubious effort to pin political violence on the current administration, call for a cooling down of political rhetoric, Trump and the right evidently bear more than a little responsibility for its current temperature.