|
Mark Udall on AbortionDemocratic Representative (CO-2) |
A: Research and development have and will always play a critical role in improving the quality of our health care, as well as making it more affordable and easier to manage. I supported doubling the budget for the National Institutes of health and continue to support more funding for NIH because of the important role they play in improving health and health care. I believe stem cell research has promise for treating diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer, and it should be expanded. Also, better use of technology for health care records can reduce administrative costs and reduce the overall cost of health care, while at the same time giving doctors more time with patients.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.
Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
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.
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:
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.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
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.
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:
| |||
| Other candidates on Abortion: | Mark Udall on other issues: | ||
|
CO Gubernatorial: John Hickenlooper CO Senatorial: Michael Bennet CO politicians Retiring as of Jan. 2013: AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ND:Conrad(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D) |
Senate elections Nov. 2012: AZ:Flake(R) CA:Feinstein(D) vs. CT:Bysiewicz(R) vs.Murphy(R) vs.Shays(R) DE:Carper(D) FL:Nelson(D) vs.LeMieux(R) HI:Hirono(D) vs.Case(D) IN:Lugar(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D) MA:Brown(R) vs.E.Warren(D) vs. MD:Cardin(D) vs.Wargotz(R) vs.Capps(R) ME:Snowe(D) vs.D`Amboise(R) MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hekman(R) vs.Konetchy(R) vs.Hoekstra(R) MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) vs.Steelman(R) MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R) ND:(D) vs.Berg(R) |
NE:Nelson(D) vs.Flynn(R) vs.Stenberg(R) vs.Bruning(R) NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Linker(R) NM:Bingaman(D) vs.Balderas(D) vs.Sanchez(R) vs.Wilson(R) NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D) NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Noren(D) OH:Brown(D) vs.Coughlin(R) vs.Pryce(R) PA:Casey(D) vs.Scaringi(R) RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R) TN:Corker(R) TX:Cruz(R) vs.Jones(R) vs.Leppert(R) UT:Hatch(R) vs.Chaffetz(R) VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) vs.Donner(R) vs.Radtke(R) WA:Cantwell(D) WI:Schiess(R) vs.Neumann(R) vs.Thompson(R) vs.Kagen(D) vs.Kind(D) vs.Baldwin(D) WV:Manchin(D) WY:Barrasso(R) |
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 |
|
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-6471 Mailing Address: Senate Office SH-317, Washington, DC 20510 | |||