Lincoln Chafee on Abortion Libertarian presidential challenger; Independent RI Governor; Republican Senator (1999-2007)

Support right to woman's personal reproductive decisions

A woman should make her own reproductive decisions

Believing in freedom, as we do, we don't think it's the role of government to pass judgment on a relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of their orientation. Believing in freedom, we believe a woman should make her own reproductive decisions.

Emotional & divisive abortion debate takes over other issues

One of our hundred delegates got down on his knees in the House chamber, clasped his hands, and beseeched us: Save the babies! Save the babies!

Opposed Alito because he didn't respect right to privacy

1. I feared he would not respect a woman's constitutional right to privacy as it concerns her own body;
2. that he would not uphold the commerce clause as the constitutional protection laws;
3. and that he would vote to expand executive powers at every opportunity.

Embryonic stem cell research could help with many diseases

CHAFEE: I voted for a bill for federal funding. I believe it could help people with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and spinal cord injury.

WHITEHOUSE: There should be federal subsidies for embryonic stem cell research because of its enormous promise. It’s outrageous that Bush has used this as its one veto; to try to eliminate this research is shameful. It shows the Republicans being driven by ideology rather than science.

Leaving abortion to states means only wealthy have choice

CHAFEE: I have consistently voted against any federal attempt to ban women’s reproductive freedom & choices. If it’s left to the states, then only wealthy women will have access to abortions, if they have the resources to travel, whereas poor women would have to resort to the old days of difficult decisions.

WHITEHOUSE: I am pro-choice. I firmly believe that family planning decisions should be private, and that there’s no role for government intrusion in those decisions. Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land by almost any legal standard. But unfortunately what we’re seeing in Washington now, by Republicans, is a concerted & deliberate attempt to pack the Supreme Court with a particular ideology to try to undo rights that have been very long-settled, indeed settled by justices who were overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents. If Roe v. Wade is overturned I think those rights should be recognized at the state level.

The real potential for cures is in the embryonic stem cells

CHAFEE: Every scientist is saying that the real potential is in the embryonic stem cells. That’s where the real potential is for the cures for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and cancer. If the US does not fund that research, it’s going to go elsewhere. Some other country is going to take advantage and be in the forefront of solving some of these diseases and curing some of these diseases. Many conservatives did vote for the stem cell bill. Laffey said he would vote against it, that’s hypocritical.

LAFFEY: It’s not hypocritical. I felt it was the wrong business lines. Senator Chafee mentioned one scientist. It’s not every scientist. It’s very few, quite frankly. In the end, the real progress will be made because the problem with embryonic stem cell research is the rejection rate that they’re finding tumors and all kinds of problems in animals and rats and they haven’t made it to humans yet and I don’t think they will.

Opposed the Alito nomination on 3 issues, not litmus test

Strongly supports “Abortion is a woman’s right”

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

• Increase funding and access to family planning services
• Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
• Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.

Rated 90% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Dear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.

We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.

However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.

Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:

• While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
• All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
• It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
• Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.

Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:

1. accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
2. emergency contraception on her request; and
3. does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.

Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.

By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.

The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.