Michele Bachmann on Abortion
Republican Representative (MN-6); 2011 GOP frontrunner
I immediately realized that I was completely committed to a pro-life position. Why would our government legalize taking the life of an unborn baby? Why should an abortion-minded young woman not be told of the negative emotional and physical repercussions she would face as the result of an abortion? How could anyone kill a little baby? How could such a crime be allowed? I have enormous sympathy for unwed mothers, to be sure, and for those who live with doubt and fear of the future; it is the duty of the rest of us to help them. Which Marcus and I chose to do. We reached out to offer counsel and friendship to women in unplanned pregnancies.
At that time, I was still a Democrat. The Democratic Party still allowed room in its ranks for pro-life leaders. Many pro-life Americans could be found conscientiously voting for the Carter-Mondale ticket, thinking they were voting pro-life. And Marcus and I did more than that; we helped on his campaign, handing out fliers and making phone calls.
As I have often said, the one issue that we absolutely have to get right is life. As Jesus told us in Matthew 25:40, "Verify I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." And surely the least among us is an unborn child.
BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, an I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.
PAWLENTY: The National Review Online said based on results--not just based on words--I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.
Not only is it immoral to destroy human embryos, but it is even worse to place women in a position where their health is at risk to do unethical research--especially in light of the recent discoveries that adult stem cells can reprogram cells without the use of potentially cancer-causing viruses. This is a marvelous breakthrough.
I am thrilled with the advances that science has made. But in the process of protecting some lives, it is essential that we do not harm others, impact women's infertility, and endanger women's lives--all at the taxpayer's expense.
As a foster mother to 23 at-risk children, I applaud the work of those who reach out to assist those most in need of care.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
A bill to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Congressional Summary: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011: Imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to:
Sponsor's Letter (Rep. Trent Franks):PRENDA restricts sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion, and the coercion of a woman to obtain either. The woman seeking an abortion is exempted from prosecution, while abortion providers are held to account.
Opponents' Opinion (Erin Gloria Ryan on jezebel.com):Rep. Franks, a white man, has claimed that his desire to disallow "race-selective abortions" is based on his concern that the black community is having so many abortions. He doesn't say how, exactly, doctors are supposed to determine that a black woman seeking an abortion is doing so because her fetus would be black or whether she's just doing it because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Let's be honest here: this isn't really about saving girls and minorities; it's about eventually making abortion illegal. A sex-selection ban would present the Supreme Court with a dilemma: it dares the pro-abortion justices to embrace an abortion right to kill girls for being girls.
A BILL: To prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
[Explanation from Wikipedia.com]: UNFPA has been accused of providing support for government programs which have promoted forced-abortions and coercive sterilizations. Controversies regarding these allegations have resulted in a sometimes shaky relationship between the organization and the US government, with three presidential administrations, that of Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush withholding funding from the UNFPA.
From 2002 through 2008, the Bush Administration denied funding to UNFPA that had already been allocated by the US Congress, partly on the grounds that the UNFPA supported Chinese government programs which include forced abortions and coercive sterilizations, thus violating the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
UNFPA says it "does not provide support for abortion services". Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion. UNFPA's connection to China's administration of forced abortions was disputed by investigations carried out by various US, UK, and UN teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China. A three-person US State Department fact-finding team was sent on a two week tour throughout China, concluding that it found "no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China," as has been charged by critics. However, according to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the UNFPA contributed vehicles and computers to the Chinese to carry out their population control policies.
The EU and Japan decided to fill the gap left behind by the US. In America, nonprofit organizations worked to compensate for the loss of US federal funding by raising private donations.
Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.
Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.
OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the "fungibility" of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.
The Susan B. Anthony List's 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. The Pro-life pledge:
Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where:
Bill would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. The Right to Life Act declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and defines "human being" to encompass all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning.
A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.
|2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Abortion:||Michele Bachmann on other issues:|
Lame-duck session 2012:
KY-4: Thomas Massie(R)
NJ-9: Donald Payne Jr.(D)
WA-1: Suzan DelBene(D)
Re-seated Former Reps:
AZ-1: Ann Kirkpatrick(D)
AZ-5: Matt Salmon(R)
FL-8: Alan Grayson(D)
NH-1: Carol Shea-Porter(D)
NV-3: Dina Titus(D)
2013 Resignations and Replacements:
IL-2:Jesse Louis Jackson(D,resigned)
MA-5:Ed Markey(D,to Senate)
MO-8:Jo Ann Emerson(R,resigned)
MO-8:Jason Smith(R,elected June 2013)
AZ-9: Kyrsten Sinema
CA-2: Jared Huffman
CA-7: Ami Bera
CA-35:Gloria Negrete McLeod
CT-5: Elizabeth Esty
HI-2: Tulsi Gabbard
IL-8: Tammy Duckworth
MD-6: John Delaney
MA-4: Joe Kennedy III
MI-5: Dan Kildee
MN-8: Rick Nolan
NV-4: Steven Horsford
NH-2: Annie Kuster
NM-1: Michelle Lujan-Grisham
NY-5: Grace Meng
WA-6: Derek Kilmer
WI-2: Mark Pocan
AR-4: Tom Cotton
CA-1: Doug LaMalfa
FL-3: Ted Yoho
FL-6: Ron DeSantis
GA-9: Doug Collins
IN-2: Jackie Walorski
IN-5: Susan Brooks
IN-6: Luke Messer
KY-6: Andy Barr
MO-2: Ann Wagner
MT-0: Steve Daines
NC-8: Richard Hudson
NC-9: Robert Pittenger
ND-0: Kevin Cramer
OH-2: Brad Wenstrup
OK-1: Jim Bridenstine
OK-2: Markwayne Mullin
PA-4: Scott Perry
SC-7: Tom Rice
UT-2: Chris Stewart
Email Contact Form
P.O. Box 96891, Washington, D.C. 20090-6891