Elizabeth Warren on Abortion Massachusetts Senator; former head of CFPB; Dem. Presidential Challenger

We have never left individual rights to the states

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Look, what she's really saying is that when this decision is made, it should be made by the government. That the government should move in and the government should determine whether or not a pregnancy is forced to continue or whether or not a pregnancy can be terminated. We have never left individual rights to the states. The whole idea is that women are not second-class citizens. And the government is not the one that will decide about the continuation of a pregnancy.

The role of government on abortion is to back out

I don't think any woman makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly. For some, the answer may be automatic, as it clearly was for the mother I met in Indiana whose daughter had been raped. For others the choice may be agonizing. And for nearly every other woman, the decision to have the pregnancy or end it has a life altering impact.

Women who seek abortions are as varied as all of us. I heard the stories everywhere--in my faculty office, my Senate office, on the campaign trail. I talked with a woman with three children who could not support a fourth. A woman whose partner had left her. A woman about to accept her commission into the Army. A woman battling addiction. A woman with a severely damaged fetus.

National law to protect the right of a woman's choice

Illegal abortions mean only poor women can't get them

Americans support Roe, Congress should be able to pass

Legal abortions are safer than tonsillectomies

Warren became the subject of increased scrutiny and rhetorical attacks from the right in January 2019, after she declared she was in the running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Against that background, a viral meme re-emerged on social media:

"'Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed.'--Liberal Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren. Yes, she really said this."

In reality, Warren did not make these remarks. Warren was making a point about the relative safety of the procedure: On 24 July 2018, in Marie Claire magazine, Warren wrote: "When abortions are illegal, women don't stop getting them--they just risk their lives to do it. Today, thanks to Roe, getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out. Before Roe v. Wade, many women turned to back-alley butchers to end their pregnancies."

No bankruptcy for pro-life groups to avoid court levies

When the House and Senate bills went to conference, negotiators worked out a compromise.

So we had won, at least for another day. The victory was the result of some pretty tangled politics, but the families who needed bankruptcy protection were safe behind our sandbag for a little while longer.

No Supreme Court nominees who oppose legal abortion

Brown described himself as "pro-choice" and said he opposed Kagan because she didn't have enough courtroom experience for the high court. "Sorry I didn't vote for your boss," Brown said, referring to Kagan's tenure as dean of Harvard Law School. Warren pointed to a Brown vote in favor of a proposed amendment that would allow employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control. Brown said he supports women's access to birth control but was trying to protect the concerns of Roman Catholics.

Staunch Pro-Abortion stance

Supports public abortion funding.

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Public funding of abortions"

Supports churches providing birth control.

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Requiring religious groups to cover birth control & abortion in insurance"

Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Congressional summary:: Women`s Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:

• a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
• a limitation on an abortion provider`s ability to delegate tasks;
• a limitation on an abortion provider`s ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
• a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
• a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
• a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

Opponent`s argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses `women`s ability to participate equally`; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.

Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors` ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
• These restrictions harm women`s health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
• The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman`s ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
• It is the purpose of this Act to protect women`s health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions

Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014): During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the `need` for the bill`s evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.

• Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted `under the false pretext of health and safety.`
  Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
• Myth: `Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe.`
  Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
• Myth: Admitting privileges laws are `not medically justified.`
  Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
• Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are `cruel and inhumane.`
  Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.

Keep federal funding for family planning clinics.

Excerpts from Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators: The recent vote in the House to overturn rules protecting Title X health centers would deny women access to care. In 2015, Title X provided basic primary and preventive health care services such as pap tests, breast exams, and HIV testing to more than four million low-income women and men at over 4,000 health centers. In large part due to this work, the US unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and rates of teenage pregnancy are the lowest in our nation`s history. The success of the program is dependent on funding. Family planning services, like those provided at Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers, should be available to all women, no matter where they live or how much money they make.

Opposing argument: (Heritage Foundation, `Disentangling the Data`): Planned Parenthood received approximately $60 million of taxpayer money under Title X, and $390 million through Medicaid. To ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize America`s number one abortion provider, Congress should make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible to receive either Medicaid reimbursements or Title X grants if they continue to perform abortions. Taxpayer money from these programs should instead be redirected to the more than 9,000 federally qualified health center sites that provide comprehensive primary health care for those in need without entanglement in abortion.

Supporting argument: (ACLU, `Urging Title X`): Title X services help women & men to plan the number and timing of their pregnancies, thereby helping to prevent approximately one million unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would end in abortion. However, current funding is inadequate. Had Title X funding kept up with inflation it would now be funded at nearly $700 million. We ask that Title X be funded at $375 million, which is $92 million above its current funding level.

Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women.

EMILY`s List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office:
• EMILY`s List looks for viable political opportunities and recruits strong pro-choice Democratic women candidates to run.
• We tell our community of members about these women, and ask them to give directly to the campaigns.
• We provide extensive training for candidates and staff so they can make the most of limited resources.
• We conduct in-depth, ongoing research into the minds and moods of women voters, a critical bloc for Democrats.
• Finally, our WOMEN VOTE! project reaches out to women voters to go to the polls and cast their ballots for progressive Democrats--because When Women Vote, Women Win!
• EMILY`s List`s motto is `win today and build for tomorrow.`