Patrick Leahy on Abortion Democratic Sr Senator (VT)

Rated 50% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion.

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.

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

• 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
• 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

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.

Supports public funding for abortion services.

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)' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."

Opposes parental notification for abortions by minors.

The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Parental Notification for Abortions by Minors' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."

Opposes judges who strictly interpret Constitution.

The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Appointing Judges Who Will Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution)' The Christian Coalition notes, `You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives, but now we need you

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.

Protect the reproductive rights of women.

• Provides that a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy:
• before fetal viability; or
• at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
• Allows a State to impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of such women.
• Declares that this Act shall not be construed to prevent a State from:
• requiring minors to involve responsible adults before terminating a pregnancy; and
• protecting individuals from having to participate in abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed. Source: Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.25) 1993-H25 on Jan 5, 1993

  Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.

  Leahy 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.

  Leahy 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
  8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
  9. 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.

  Leahy signed Prevention First Act
  • Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
  • Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
  • Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
  • Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.

    At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.

  • Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
  • Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid`s coverage of family planning services.
  • Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
  • Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
  Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009

  Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Patrick Leahy. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Patrick Leahy. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Patrick Leahy. Click here for a summary of Patrick Leahy's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other VT politicians. Click here for issue statements from VT primary archives. Click here for issue statements from VT secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Abortion:		Patrick Leahy on other issues:
  VT Gubernatorial: Brenda Siegel Esther Charlestin Peter Duval Phil Scott Scott Milne VT Senatorial: Bernie Sanders Gerald Malloy Peter Welch VT politicians VT 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