|
Chris Murphy on Abortion
Senate Challenger; Democratic Rep. (CT-5)
|
|
I'm more pro-choice than opponent; but no late-term abortion
Murphy accused McMahon of not really supporting abortion rights, despite her repeated statements in TV ads and during the hour-long debate that she is a ''pro-choice woman.'' Murphy pointed to how McMahon has received support from anti-abortion advocates
and her stance on abortion-related issues, including her support of a failed amendment to the federal health care reform law that would have allowed businesses to forgo health insurance coverage for contraception.He warned that McMahon would support
the ''anti-woman, tea party agenda'' in Washington if she becomes the state's next senator.
McMahon, who has said the failed federal amendment about contraception was an overreach by the government, reiterated her support for abortion rights and
said as a mother and grandmother, she wouldn't do anything to hurt women and their health care.
Both candidates said they oppose late-term abortions unless the health and life of the mother is at risk, and both said they believe life begins at birth.
Source: Boston Globe coverage of 2012 CT Senate debate
, Oct 18, 2012
Authored state's Stem Cell Investment Act
In the State Senate, in 2005, I authored Connecticut's landmark Stem Cell Investment
Act, marking the first time a state legislature had invested funds in stem cell research.
Source: 2010 House campaign website, www.chrismurphy.com, "Issues"
, Jul 16, 2011
Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions.
Murphy signed Access to Birth Control Act
Access to Birth Control Act: Amends the Public Health Service Act to require pharmacies to comply with certain rules related to contraceptives, including:- providing a customer a contraceptive without delay if it is in stock;
- immediately informing a customer if the contraceptive is not in stock and either transferring the prescription to a pharmacy that has the contraceptive in stock or expediting the ordering of the contraceptive and notifying the customer when it arrives, based on customer preference, except for pharmacies that do not ordinarily stock contraceptives in the normal course of business; and
- ensuring that
pharmacy employees do not take certain actions relating to a request for contraception, including intimidating, threatening, or harassing customers, interfering with or obstructing the delivery of services, intentionally misrepresenting or deceiving customers about the availability of contraception or its mechanism of action, breaching or threatening to breach medical confidentiality, or refusing to return a valid, lawful prescription.
Provides that this Act does not preempt state law or any professional clinical judgment. Sets forth civil penalties and establishes a a private cause of action for violations of this Act.
Source: HR2659&S1415 11-HR2659 on Jul 26, 2011
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Murphy co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
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.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.
Murphy co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448
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.
Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_S217 on Jan 21, 2015
Keep federal funding for family planning clinics.
Murphy signed keeping 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.
Source: Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators 17LTR-TITX on Mar 1, 2017
CC:Publicly fund abortions.
Murphy supports the CC survey question on funding abortion
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Public Funding of Abortions (Such as Govt. Health Benefits and Planned Parenthood)'
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1b on Jul 1, 2018
CC:No parental notification for abortions by minors.
Murphy opposes the CC survey question on parental notification
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Parental Notification for Abortions by Minors '
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1c on Jul 1, 2018
Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.
Murphy voted NAY Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
S.311/H.R.962: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Congress finds the following:
- If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
- (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
- In the case of an attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born
alive at the same gestational age.
Opposing argument from Rewire.com, `Born Alive Propaganda,` by Calla Hales, 4/12/2019: From restrictive bans at various points of pregnancy to a proposed death penalty for seeking care, both federal and state legislators are taking aim at abortion rights. The goal? To make abortion illegal, criminalizing patients and providers in the process. One kind of bill making a recent resurgence is the `Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.` These bills aim to further the false narrative that abortions regularly occur immediately before or, according to the president, at the time of birth. Intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. This is covered by federal and state infanticide laws. These bills do nothing but vilify physicians who provide reproductive health care.
Legislative outcome Referred to Committee in House; Senate motion to proceed rejected, 56-41-3 (60 required).
Source: Congressional vote 19-S0311 on Feb 5, 2019
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.
Murphy co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women`s health care. The Congress finds as follows:
- Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
- Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
- Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
- In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
- The
US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
- Increasing access to family planning services will improve women`s health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
- Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
- Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
- A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.
Murphy signed Prevention First Act
Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009
|
Other candidates on Abortion: |
Chris Murphy on other issues: |
CT Gubernatorial: Bob Stefanowski Ned Lamont CT Senatorial: Dan Carter Joe Visconti John Flynn Leora Levy Matthew Corey Richard Blumenthal Robert Hyde Themis Klarides
CT politicians
CT Archives
|
Senate races 2024:
AZ:
Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent)
vs.Ruben Gallego(D)
vs.Kari Lake(R)
vs.Mark Lamb(R)
CA:
Laphonza Butler(D,retiring)
vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee)
vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee)
vs.Gail Lightfoot(L)
vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary)
vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary)
CT:
Chris Murphy(D,incumbent)
vs.John Flynn(R)
vs.Robert Hyde(R)
DE:
Tom Carper(D,retiring)
vs.Eric Hansen(R)
vs.Michael Katz(I)
vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D)
FL:
Rick Scott(R,incumbent)
vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D)
HI:
Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent)
vs.Bob McDermott(R)
IN:
Mike Braun(R,retiring)
vs.Jim Banks(R nominee)
vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee)
vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary)
MA:
Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent)
vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R)
vs.John Deaton(R)
MD:
Ben Cardin(D,retiring)
vs.Larry Hogan(R)
vs.Robin Ficker(R)
vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D)
vs.David Trone(D)
ME:
Angus King(I,incumbent)
vs.Demi Kouzounas(R)
vs.David Costello(D)
MI:
Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring)
vs.Leslie Love(D)
vs.Peter Meijer(R)
vs.James Craig(R)
vs.Mike Rogers(R)
vs.Elissa Slotkin(D)
MN:
Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent)
vs.Royce White(R)
vs.Steve Carlson(DFL)
MO:
Josh Hawley(R,incumbent)
vs.Karla May(D)
vs.Lucas Kunce(D)
MS:
Roger Wicker(R,incumbent)
vs.Dan Eubanks(R)
vs.Ty Pinkins(D)
MT:
Jon Tester(D,incumbent)
vs.Tim Sheehy(R)
vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary)
ND:
Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent)
vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)
|
NE:
Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat)
vs.Preston Love(D)
Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat)
vs.Dan Osborn(I)
NJ:
Bob Menendez(I,incumbent)
vs.Andy Kim(D)
vs.Curtis Bashaw(R)
vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew)
NM:
Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent)
vs.Nella Domenici(R)
NV:
Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent)
vs.Jim Marchant (R)
vs.Sam Brown(R)
NY:
Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent)
vs.Mike Sapraicone(R)
vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1)
OH:
Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent)
vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee)
vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary)
vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary)
PA:
Bob Casey(D,incumbent)
vs.David McCormick(R)
RI:
Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent)
vs.Patricia Morgan(R)
vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew)
TN:
Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent)
vs.Gloria Johnson(D)
vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D)
TX:
Ted Cruz(R,incumbent)
vs.Colin Allred(D)
vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary)
vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary)
UT:
Mitt Romney(R,retiring)
vs.John Curtis(R)
vs.Trent Staggs(R)
vs.Brad Wilson(R)
vs.Caroline Gleich(D)
VA:
Tim Kaine(D,incumbent)
vs.Scott Parkinson(R)
VT:
Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent)
vs.Gerald Malloy(R)
WA:
Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent)
vs.Raul Garcia(R)
WI:
Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent)
vs.Eric Hovde(R)
vs.Phil Anderson(L)
WV:
Joe Manchin III(D,retiring)
vs.Don Blankenship(D)
vs.Jim Justice(R)
vs.Alex Mooney(R)
vs.Glenn Elliott(D)
WY:
John Barrasso(R,incumbent)
vs.Reid Rasner(R)
vs.Scott Morrow(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
[Title9]
|
Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org