Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
No opportunityAbortion

Will not vote for a national (federal) abortion ban, holding that the issue was returned to the states by the Supreme Court and should be decided at the state level.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

No opportunityFact-checker reviewConfidence: 55%

Independent verification confirms the prior researcher's citations are real and support the rating. H.R. 722 (Life at Conception Act, sponsored by Rep. Burlison R-MO) — the leading federal fetal-personhood measure — has 68 cosponsors and Gabe Evans is NOT among them, consistent with his pledge (verified via Congress.gov bill text). H.R. 21 (Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act), Roll Call 27 on Jan 23 2025, on which Evans voted Yea, is a post-birth-care measure, not a federal abortion ban (verified via clerk.house.gov). On Sen. Hawley's proposed federal mifepristone/abortion-pill restrictions, Evans hedged, saying mifepristone has 'viable medical uses' and he needs to read the bill (NOTUS, verified). No comprehensive federal abortion ban has come to a House floor vote in the 119th Congress, so the specific promise-testing vote has not occurred. Non-cosponsorship of H.R. 722 is consistent with the pledge but is negative evidence — not a legislative act on his part — so it does not warrant lifting to ATTEMPTED/CHAMPIONED. NO_OPPORTUNITY at 0.55 confidence is fair under the same neutral standard I would apply to any party.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →