Michelle Lujan-Grisham on Abortion
Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D): Legal. Opposed bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks unless women's life was at risk or pregnancy was from rape or incest.
Steve Pearce (R): Ban. Voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks unless women's life was at risk or pregnancy was from rape or incest.
Q: Contraception: Allow employers to withhold contraceptive coverage from employees if they disagree with it morally?
Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D): No. Access to free contraception essential "regardless of employer's religious beliefs."
Steve Pearce (R): Yes. "This is not an issue of birth control, it's an issue of government control."
Q: Let Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health care?
Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D): Yes. Values their preventive care.
Steve Pearce (R): No. Willing to shut down government to stop any public funding of them.
The right to choose has been a fundamental right enjoyed by women for more than two generations. But today that right is more tenuous than it has ever been because of repeated attempts by Republicans to turn back the clock on women and families. Michelle is life-long supporter of women's reproductive rights.
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"
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"
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?'
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
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.
Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:
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.
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.
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.