OnTheIssuesLogo

Dave Reichert on Abortion

Republican Representative (WA-8)

 


Pro-life with exceptions; but no plans to change state laws

He said he is pro-life, but support's a woman's right to abortion in cases of incest, rape, or if the mother's life is at risk. But Reichert said he has no plans to change existing state abortion laws. He said those decisions should be made by voters, not politicians.
Source: KING5 News on 2024 Washington Gubernatorial race , Jul 19, 2023

Rated 82% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

Reichert scores 82% by the NRLC on abortion issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Supports prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research.

Reichert supports the CC survey question on banning stem-cell research

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research". [Supporting this statement means the candidate would ban such research; opposing it means the candidate would allow such research].

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1a on Aug 11, 2010

Opposes federal abortion funding.

Reichert opposes the CC survey question on funding abortion

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic:"Public funding of abortions, (such as govt. health benefits and Planned Parenthood)"

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1b on Aug 11, 2010

No taxpayer funding of abortions via ObamaCare.

Reichert voted YEA No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.

ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women`s health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government`s obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman`s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama`s approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.

Thus both sides` fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.

Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.

Source: Congressional vote 15-H0007 on Jan 22, 2015

Ban abortion after 20 weeks, except for maternal life.

Reichert voted YEA Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.

ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned `Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,` which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman`s right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman`s most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman`s health, no matter how severe the situation. H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so `complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.` Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.

Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.

Source: Congressional vote 15-H0036 on May 13, 2015

Other governors on Abortion: Dave Reichert on other issues:
[Title7]
Gubernatorial Debates 2023:
KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D)
vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R)

vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R)
vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R)
LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited)
vs.Jeff Landry(R)
vs.Shawn Wilson(D)
vs.John Schroder(R)
vs.Sharon Hewitt(R)
MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R)
vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew)
vs.Brandon Presley(D)

Gubernatorial Debates 2024:
DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited);
vs. Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D)
vs. Matt Meyer (D)
vs. State Rep.Mike Ramone (R)
IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited);
vs. Sen. Mike Braun (R)
vs. Suzanne Crouch (R)
vs. Jennifer McCormick (D)
MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited):
vs. Jay Ashcroft (R)
vs. Bill Eigel (R)
vs. Mike Kehoe (R)
vs. Crystal Quade (D)
MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R)
vs. Ryan Busse (D)
vs. Tanner Smith (R, lost June 4 primary)
Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued):
NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited);
vs. Mark Robinson (R)
vs. Josh Stein (D)
vs. Dale Folwell (R, lost March 5 primary)
vs. Michael Morgan (D, lost March 5 primary)
vs. Andy Wells (R,withdrew)
ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R, retiring)
vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R)
vs. U.S.Rep.Kelly Armstrong (R)
vs. State Sen.Merrill Piepkorn (D)
NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring)
vs. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R)
vs. Joyce Craig (D)
vs. Chuck Morse (R)
vs. Cinde Warmington (D)
UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R)
vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R)
vs. Minority Leader Brian King (D)
VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R)
vs. Selectman Peter Duval (D)
vs. Commissioner Esther Charlestin (D)
WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring);
vs. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D)
vs. U.S.Rep.Dave Reichert (R)
vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D)
vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R)
vs. Hilary Franz (D, withdrew)
WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited);
vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R)
vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D)
vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew)
vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R, lost May 14 primary)
vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R, lost May 14 primary)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Local Issues
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

[Title9]





Page last updated: Jun 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org