2012 Candidates for President

Select an Issue and Scroll the Candidates

Abortion
The Economy
Health Care
Debt, Deficit, and Spending
Immigration
Social Security
Energy and the Environment
Taxes
Gay Marriage
Trade Policy
The War in Afghanistan
TARP
Libya
Iran
The Federal Reserve
Israel
China
Education
Ethics
Cuba
Homeland Security
Illegal Drugs
Monetary Policy
NASA
Net Neutrality
North Korea
Nuclear Weapons
Quantitative Easing
Stem Cell Research
Supreme Court Justices
TARP and GM
The Constitution
The Fairness Doctrine
The Filibuster
The Paul Ryan Plan
The Second Amendment
The Stimulus
The Tenth Amendment
The War in Afghanistan
The War in Iraq
Unions
Welfare and Unemployment

Candidate Views on Abortion

Ron Paul

Summary

Congressman Paul is Pro-Life. As a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies Congressman Paul believes that life begins at conception. He also notes that the Constitution declares that any authority not given to the federal government is relegated to the states, and that with abortion not being addressed within the constitution the matter is a state issue to be handled at the local level like any other crime. For this reason, he notes that Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided as the federal government does not have authority over the matter. 

To reinforce his moral belief that life begins at conception, Congressman Paul has noted in debates and speeches that the law attaches legal rights and protections to a fetus at the moment of conception. These legal rights range from hereditary rights to legal protection from harm. He notes that as a doctor, he is legally liable for accidents or malfeasance when delivering or caring for an unborn child. 

During the 2008 election cycle, Congressman Paul was asked who should be punished if abortions were illegal. He noted that in his view it was legally a state matter and that if he were elected President then there would be no need to make that decision. He also noted that while there was no good answer, as a doctor he never saw a third trimester abortion that was medically necessary. From that viewpoint, the doctor should be punished for the crime.

Given his moral pro-life stance and Constitutional views that the federal government should have no involvement in abortion, Congressman Paul opposes the use of federal funds to perform or encourage abortions.

In accordance with his stated position, Congressman Paul has sponsored legislation to declare that life begins at conception and to ensure that no federal funds are allocated to perform abortions. The Congressman has also proposed legislation to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts and return it to the state level.

 

Support for the Hyde Amendment

In 2001, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his support for the Hyde amendment to prevent taxpayers funds from going to groups overseas that provide abortions.

 

Federalization of Social Policy

In January of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the need to remove the federal government from issues such as abortion.

Federalizing Social Policy

January 30, 2006

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court. Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person.

For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

 

Opposition to federal involvement in abortion

In November of 2007, Congressman Paul responded to a question asking who should be charged with a crime if a woman received an abortion and it was illegal. He stated that abortion was not a matter that the President or the federal government should be involved in. He notes that the issue should be a state matter according to the constitution and not relevant to the office of president. He then notes that as an OB-GYN himself, he has never seen a case where an abortion was medically necessary in the third trimester. He states that any doctor performing such a procedure should be punished.

 

Speech at Bob Jones University

In June of 2008, Congressman Paul discussed his views on abortion at Bob Jones University. In that speech, Dr. Paul notes the 4,000 babies he has delivered in his medical career. He discusses the moral requirement of people to help those who are pregnant and do not wish to be, and then discusses the legal aspect of abortion.

Congressman Paul notes that life begins at conception in his opinion and that legal matters uphold this belief as hereditary and legal protections come into affect at conception. He notes that any doctor harming a fetus is legally culpable after conception. He notes that a woman can go to an abortion clinic moments before delivery and receive an abortion and pay a doctor to perform it. However, if she delivers the child and throws it away, she is charged with murder.

Congressman Paul also notes again that abortion is a state issue, that the federal government does not have the authority to assert itself through a law like Roe vs Wade. 

 

2008 Presidential Debate

In the 2008 Presidential race, Congressman Paul spoke about his beliefs on abortion in a debate. He notes that he believes strongly in civil liberties. He then asserts that the protection of liberty is academic without the protection of life, born and unborn. Congressman Paul then discusses the legislation that he is introduced called the Right to Life Act that asserts that life begins at conception. He notes that this is not a belief of his, but a scientific statement.

 

Nashua Telegraph Debate 

In June of 2007, Congressman Paul was interviewed by the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire for the Presidential race. He is asked what kind of policy he would like to see enacted.

I consider abortion an act of violence. Violence is one thing that the government has the responsibility to curtail. For the most part, all acts of violence are handled by state law ... murder, and manslaughter, and accidents, and all kinds of things ... Therefore, I think they should deal with this issue. It's a more difficult issue than just plain murder and therefore it should be worked out at the state level, so I don't want the federal government to do it. 

 

2006 Congressional Race

In 2006, Congressman Paul spoke about his right to life bill in a debate. In addition to addressing his pro-life views, Congressman Paul notes legislation that he has introduced to take abortion out of the realm of jurisdiction for federal courts.

Q: If elected, what would you do ... to restore full rights to every American waiting to be born?

Congressman Paul: As an OB Doctor of 30 years and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you that life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn no matter what I do. So there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing there's a legal entity. There's no doubt about it. 

 

Discussing abortion on The View

In the run up to the 2008 election, Congressman Paul appeared on "The View" and discussed the subject of abortion. Congressman Paul notes his legal and moral views on abortion.

 

Opposition to state funding abortion

In a July 2009 audio address, Congressman Paul spoke about the morality of using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest. 

 

National Right to Life Speech

In 2007, Congressman Paul spoke at the National Right to Life Council.

 

Fox News / Google Debate

On September of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Fox News / Google debate. He is asked about his support for an exception for rape and incest and discusses his overall pro-life stance as well.

KELLY: Congressman Paul, you have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances...

(APPLAUSE)

There are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant, you don't even know if there's a disease, but if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know where -- how you're going to police it.

So I don't think you should create -- we have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? It doesn't make any sense to me in a practical matter.

So I would say that nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

 

2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements

AN EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.

 

Campaign Website Statements

ISSUE - Life and Liberty

“I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. “

 

Many politicians talk about honoring our veterans and their sacrifices. Yet so often the rhetoric obscures The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

 

Voting Record

Amendment - Planned Parenthood Funds

In February of 2011, the House passed an amendment to prevent the use of funds by Planned Parenthood. Ron Paul voted in favor of the amendment to prevent funds from going to planned parenthood.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the amendment to prevent funds from going to planned parenthood.

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act

In December of 2006, the house attempted to pass the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006. The act sought to require an abortion provider who knowingly performs an abortion of a child who has reached 20 weeks or more to inform the woman of (among other things) the probable age of the child, and obtain the woman\'s signature on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form. Despite the support of most of the Republicans and 40 Democrats, the measure failed to pass in roll call 526. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006 created a set of requirements for a doctor performing an abortion. These requirements included informing the mother as to the age of the child and informing the mother that the child could experience pain during the procedure. The measure failed 250-162. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"

Child Custody Protection Act

In September of 2006, the House passed the Child Custody Protection Act 264-153 and sent the measure back to the Senate. The CCPA was slightly different than the Senate version and did not pass the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

In April of 2005, the house passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The measure sought to amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion.The measure passed the house in roll call 144, but no vote was taken in the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

Laci and Connors Law

The unborn victims of violence law was also called Laci and Connor\'s law. The law stated that anyone who harmed a fetus in utero was guilty of a seperate offense, provided they knew the victim was pregnant and intended to harm the unborn child. The bill was supported by most Republicans and oppossed by most Democrats in a 254-163 vote. Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Law.

Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Law.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

In October of 2003, the House passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in a 281-142 vote. In this particular vote, the House agreed to the conference report from the Senate. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Partial Birth Abortion

In June of 2003, the House passed the partial birth abortion ban act. The legislation sought to to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Although it passed in the house, it was not brought to a vote in the Senate. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Child Custody Protection Act

The Child Custody Protection Act amended the Federal criminal code to prohibit transporting an individual under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion. The Act passed the House in a 260-161 vote, but did this particular bill did not come up for a vote in the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002

In September of 2002, the House passed the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002 229-189. This legislation prohibited the Federal Government, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance, from discriminating against any health care entity because the entity refuses to provide coverage of, or pay for, induced abortions. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

In April of 2001, the House voted on the Unborn victims of violence act to enact punishment for federal crimes committed against a mother and her fetus. The measure passed the House 252-172 but was not voted on in the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mexico City Policy

The amendment in question sought to preserve the "Mexico City" policy which prohibited funds to foreign organizations that promote abortions. A vote in favor of the amendment was a vote to preserve the rule. A vote against the amendment was a vote to abolish the policy. The Amendment had a 218-210 vote. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Mexico City Policy Amendment.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Mexico City Policy Amendment.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000

In April of 2000, the House passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 287-141. The legislation made it a crime to perform a partial-birth abortion. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

In September of 1999, the House voted on the Unborn victims of violence act to enact punishment for federal crimes committed against a mother and her fetus. The measure passed the House 254-172 but was not voted on in the Senate. Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Child Custody Protection Act

In June of 1999, the House passed the Child Custody Protection Act 270-159. The legislation sought to prohibit transporting an individual under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion. Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

296-132. The legislation sought to prohibit any physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Child Custody Protection Act

In July of 1998, the House passed the Child Custody Protection Act 276-150. The legislation sought to prohibit and set penalties for transporting an individual under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion. Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

In March of 1997, the House passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act 295-136. The legislation did not have enough votes to overturn a veto. Ron Paul voted in favor of the Ban.

Ron Paul voted in favor of the Ban.

 

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Session-107; Bill Number-H R 2175; Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 - Cosponsor

Directs that in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various U.S. administrative bureaus and agencies, the words "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive (as defined in this Act) at any stage of development.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 3; No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 217; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS) from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy. Excludes hospitals from such requirement so long as the hospital does not provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion. Requires the Secretary to annually provide Congress: (1) information on grantees who performed abortions under the exceptions; and (2) a list of entities to which grant funds are made available.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 358; Protect Life Act - Cosponsor

Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 5939; No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits: (1) the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law for any abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion; (2) any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion; and (3) the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 614; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 4133; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 4157; Sanctity of Human Life Act - Cosponsor

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 6453; Schoolchildren's Health Protection Act - Cosponsor

Amends the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit the provision of federal education funding to state or local educational agencies that provide unemancipated minors with postcoital emergency contraception or prescriptions for such contraception on the premises of elementary or secondary schools.

Michele Bachmann

Summary

Congresswoman Bachmann is a strong and vocal pro-life advocate. She has stated that life begins at conception. She does not grant the exceptions for rape and incest and states that those cases are extremely rare compared to the broader issue. Congresswoman Bachmann supports the Mexico city policy of not issuing government funds to organizations that provide or promote abortion. She supports removing funding from Planned Parenthood and opposes all government funding for abortion.

There has been only one significant vote on abortion while Congresswoman Bachmann has been in office. That vote was to prevent the use of funds from being used by Planned Parenthood. Congresswoman Bachmann voted in favor of that amendment.

While there has been only one vote on abortion while she has been in office, Congresswoman Bachmann has introduced, cosponsored, and supported a great deal of legislation dealing with abortion. One of these was the Positive Alternatives Act, which would have allowed states to use block grants in welfare funding to provide assistance to women who are pregnant or may be pregnant.

Among the legislation that Congresswoman Bachmann has co-sponsored is the Right to Life Act to extend rights to the unborn, the Child Interstate Notification Act, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

 

Right to Life

On January 22, 2008 Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House floor about her support for the National Right to Life legislation. In this speech she confirms her opposition to abortion and her belief that raising the child or putting it up for adoption are superior choices to abortions.

Ms. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hensarling from Texas' Fifth District. He has confirmed once again to me, Mr. Speaker, that not only is he a giant among men here in this body, but he is a gentle giant, and those are the greatest of all.

I think I have seen a tenderness here this evening, a softness and an eloquence that he speaks, the foundational nature of the issue that we are grappling tonight. There is a sweet sorrow, if you will, regarding this subject because we are talking about something that is dealing with the foundational nature of this country and yet of all humanity, and that is life and what we will do with life.

And I jotted down just a few words before I came up to manage this hour. And I wrote down that every generation, Mr. Speaker, seems to grapple with an issue that transcends all others. That issue for 31 years has been whether government will protect from destruction life, innocent human life.

Our American landscape has changed so dramatically over these last 31 years. I was in high school when the Roe v. Wade decision came down. I hate to admit I was so ignorant when I was a junior in high school, I didn't even know what abortion meant. I didn't even know what it was. What innocence that time was in the early seventies here in the United States.

In that time, Mr. Speaker, we have lost 50 million fellow Americans, and now we've lost the children, some of whom those 50 million would have borne. There are 50 million women whose bodies were violated by the horrific violence that we call here in this chamber abortion. There are 50 million men who have lost out on the tremendous privilege and joy of fatherhood, and our Nation today is poorer because we're missing, Mr. Speaker, 50 million fellow Americans, so sadly.

An inordinate number of these 50 million Americans are children of color. We needed those children of color in our Nation. We needed those African American babies, those Latino babies, those Asian babies. We need them, Mr. Speaker, in our Nation.

And we mourn together the loss of these priceless treasures that would have woven a beautiful tapestry of humanity even here in our midst. Yes, we mourn with a great sadness, but we also rejoice, and we also take great joy in the fact that today, even now, we're making a down payment because today is a new day.

It's a new day for a future of change, and it's my hope and my prayer that it is today, Mr. Speaker, that the words that are spoken on this floor would captivate the attention of young women and young men across our Nation, young people who may have had the chance to turn this show this evening on television, who would choose to respect their bodies and would choose to respect their sexuality and choose to respect their fertility because fertility is a gift. It's not a given. It's a gift.

Ask those people who can't have children. Ask women with love who would love to bear a child but can't, young people who will choose to be givers in this Nation, givers to one another in love, givers to themselves, givers to our Nation and givers to the next generation of Americans.

Today, earlier, I had the great privilege of being in my home State of Minnesota. I went up to the steps of our State capitol. Thousands of Minnesotans had gathered. You think it's cold in Washington, DC? There is nothing like a March For Life rally in the State of Minnesota. It was sub-zero. I wasn't wearing boots. I had a wool overcoat on, and in a moment, my feet were tingling, freezing cold. There were thousands that were there that had braved sub-zero freezing temperatures, holding signs, from cities across the State of Minnesota because they wanted to be there to choose life, Mr. Speaker, and march for the greatest gift that any of us have ever had, the gift of life.

I want to take these few minutes right now to thank the Americans and the people across the globe who have chosen to adopt children. There is no such thing in this country as an unwanted child. There is no such thing. There is a line a mile long of men and women who would give anything tonight to adopt a child. Yes, even the less than a perfect child there's a mile long group of people who would say me, let me, just like Mother Theresa

of India who said give them to me and I will take these children.

Thank you to those who have chosen to give life, and whether you kept that child or blessed another family with a child, thank you for choosing life tonight.

I want to thank parents who have chosen to be foster parents, who have taken children in less than ideal situations, or parents that couldn't cope with a child who was difficult. I thank the foster parents who have opened your hearts, opened your arms, opened your homes, who've inconvenienced yourselves, but yet, you have chosen a better way, to give life in a different sort of way to children in foster homes.

I also want to thank the women who have chosen life and the parents who have encouraged their young daughters or their sons to be supportive of women in a situation where they didn't know if they would choose life or if they would choose to take life. I thank the parents.

It's easy when your child is suffering with an unplanned pregnancy to say it's okay, I'll support you, I'll take you to that abortion clinic, I will pay for that abortion. But they don't always recognize that there is a price that that young woman will pay for the rest of her life in her emotion because her arms will be forever empty, and she'll know that there is a baby that could have been hers and yet was not, or a young man who knows he could have been a father to that baby.

Parents, think again. Taking the easy way isn't always the easy way, Mr. Speaker, and for boyfriends who just heard the news that their girlfriend is pregnant, oh, my gosh, of course I will pay for the abortion you say, let's do that. You don't need this; I don't need this. We've got a whole life in front of us. Who needs this? We can do this. I will borrow the money from my parents, the boyfriend might say, Mr. Speaker, or yet he might say I'll drop you if you don't have this abortion. I'll leave you. I'll walk out on you.

There's another way. There's another choice. There's a choice called life, and it may be inconvenient and it may be embarrassing and it may be expensive, and yes, it will change your life and there may be pain, but there will be joy when you hear that first cry, when you hold that hand that literally covers your finger. And when you look in those eyes and you stroke that silky hair, there is nothing like that baby that you will see, and it will change your life as a young man. It will change your life as a young woman.

That baby has the power to change America. Every baby has the power to change this country. They are America's greatest natural resource.

I thank my parents, David and Jean, who gave me life. I thank my husband who stood by me with our five babies and who stood by me when we lost a baby. I thank you for standing by me when we didn't know if we could go on anymore, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate, for being willing to bring 23 foster children into our home so we could offer an alternative for those children and hopefully give them a down payment on a future and on a hope.

These remarks that we gave here tonight are not about condemning anyone. Who could? Who could? I couldn't condemn anyone. Who could? But it's about lifting up people. We're here to lift up people. These remarks tonight weren't given to judge anyone. Who could? We're here to heal and offer a healing alternative.

That's why recently I introduced a bill, and it's a bipartisan bill. Democrats are on this bill. Republicans are on this bill. This is not partisan. This is about life, and this is about humanity and choosing the best that are among us, and in the Positive Alternatives Act, we just say something very simply. It says that today there are tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the United States. Tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood.

There are not tax dollars that go to life care centers in this country, and we want to change that. We want to level the playing field.

And we want to give a positive alternative all across this great country so that there is a chance for men and women to say, let me think about this. Maybe I don't want to choose death. Maybe I want to choose something else. Maybe there's someone out there who can help me through a difficult time, who could help me with my medical needs, who could help me to get a job, who could help me get some education, who could help me get clothes on my back, who could help me if I want to keep this baby, who could help me if I want to give this baby to a family who maybe doesn't have a baby. It's just common decency to allow for an alternative that leads to life and not lead to guilt and to death, and perhaps remorse that even a lifetime could never erase.

We are such a great country, Mr. Speaker. I know you feel that way, I know you do. And we're a blessed country. Let's choose life. Let's choose the better way. It's the American way.

 

Planned Parenthood and Government Funding

In July of 2008, Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House floor about the government money being given to Planned Parenthood. In the speech, Congresswoman Bachmann speaks about a recent article denoting the tax exempt status of Planned Parenthood. She discusses the movement of Planned Parenthood into mainstream shopping centers, and the financial success of the company. She calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded and to remove the tax exempt status from the group.

 

Mexico City Policy

In January of 2009 Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House Floor about the recent policy change by the Obama administration to abandon the Mexico City policy of not providing funding to international groups that provide or recommend abortions.

Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would like to just thank him for the years and years and years of commitment that he has had to the unborn here in America. The unborn have had a friend in Chris Smith. I thank you. That through thick and thin, it seems like we got a lot closer to our goal. Right now, it seems like we are a lot farther away when you look at the way the winds are prevailing.

It has been 36 years since we have had the fateful decision of Roe v. Wade. In 36 years, we look at the fruit of that decision and what it has led to. Has it been freedom for women? Some might say so. Has it been enslavement for women? There are a lot of women who testify that yes, it has been enslavement for them, to years of depression, fighting perhaps alcoholism, drug addiction, because they had no idea what terminating the life of their little child would do to them in terms of ripping up their insides. They didn't really know what the decision would mean.

My husband has had the privilege of counseling women and men who have been in that decision, abortion -minded women, who have later deeply regretted that decision that they made. I know for my husband and I, we are just so grateful God gave us five biological children over the years that we are grateful for, and we lost one.

The baby that we lost taught us so much. When that baby died, it changed our lives. I know for me, personally, I couldn't speak for 3 days after I lost that baby. Something was touched in the center of my soul, something so deep, so fundamental about human life that I can't even put into words right now. But the one thing I do know is that we are created in the image and likeness of a holy God.

I just think that we should not be about the business of taking away something that is so precious and so life-giving and that can never be altered. It is a decision that, once it's made, can't be changed.

When we lost our own baby, my husband and I decided we wanted to open up our home to children that were in difficult circumstances. And so we brought in 23 children over the years, not all at once, but over the years, and it changed us for the better, bringing in kids who are in really some of the very tough, tough situations. But, you know what? I have often heard that phrase from Planned Parenthood that says, ``Every Child a Wanted Child.''

I just want the American public to know, every child is a wanted child. There's a foster parent out there that wants to take in a child in at-risk situations. There are adoptive parents out there that are crying tonight, literally crying themselves to sleep, because they want to take in a child.

No, we are not talking just perfect children. We are talking special needs children. Children with disabilities of every kind. There are parents that want to adopt those children.

And so when I look at the policy that is coming down the pike here in our Nation's Capitol or we are looking at reviving this policy of having the American taxpayer pay for international abortions, my heart breaks. It breaks because it's all so unnecessary. It's unnecessary because there is love. There are homes. There are men, there are women that want to offer the positive alternative.

For years, one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, JOE PITTS, offered legislation called the Positive Alternatives Act. He was gracious to allow me to offer that bill last year. I offer it again now this year. It says to the men and women of America who are in a pregnancy that maybe they didn't count on that there's another way. Abortion isn't the only answer. There's a positive alternative.

Can we allow tax money, your tax money, the American people, to go to pay for international abortions? Shouldn't we allow your tax money to go to offer to pay for positive alternatives for men and women, to offer them counseling, hope. Isn't this the time of hope and change? Let's offer true hope and change that will make an eternal difference in the lives of America's next generation.

We have lost 50 million. We have lost 50 million Americans. Part of the generation that would be up and working right now to build this country into a better Nation, but we have lost them to eternity. We have lost them.

I say we have a chance now for true hope and true change, to have a positive alternative so that tax money won't be spent just on death, but tax money now could be to offer life, a true positive choice. That is why I am so grateful to my colleague from New Jersey, the wonderful Representative Chris Smith, because for years and years and years he has known, he has fought. He gets it.

The next generation needs us. They need our voice. And that is why I am so grateful that I can be a Member of Congress, to make that message now and to make that plea with my beloved colleague, just to beg our colleagues to join us. If we can offer death, certainly our country is good enough to offer life.

With that, I yield back.

 

Positive Alternative Act

In January of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting legislation that she was introducing to make changes to the TANF program,

Bachmann Re-Introduces Positive Alternatives Act

Washington, D.C., Jan 22, 2009 -

Today, as thousands of pro-life citizens from across the country came to Washington for the annual March for Life, commemorating the anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-6) re-introduced her pro-life initiative - the Positive Alternative Act. This legislation protects life and helps women in need by improving family services offered through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

In introducing this legislation, Rep. Bachmann stated:

"Today, women with unplanned pregnancies face many challenges. I strongly believe that groups and organizations that can help women navigate these challenges and empower them through counseling should be supported through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

"The TANF program is best known for funding economic benefits for low-income families with children. Over the years, improvements have been made to the program to strengthen its efficiency and help individuals achieve self-sufficiency – but more can be done.

"One way we can further improve the program is through my legislation, the Positive Alternatives Act, which would ensure states have the flexibility to use their TANF block grant dollars to offer women who are pregnant or think they may be pregnant alternative-to-abortion services. This includes information or counseling that promotes childbirth instead of abortion and assists pregnant women in making informed decisions about parenting or adoption.

"Not only do these services help reduce the occurrence of abortion, they also help resolve social, familial and economic challenges many women face that lead to destructive lifestyles and more long-term dependency on government assistance.

"Rest assured that I will continue to make it my mission to see that these pregnant women’s needs are met. Their well-being and the safety of their children depend on it."

 

Opposition to Freedom of Choice Act

In February of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann made a video to discuss her opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act.

 

Official Website Statements

Minnesota Values

Minnesota has its own unique way of life, traditions, and culture. I am a strong advocate of Minnesota’s hunting and fishing heritage, and I firmly support the right of law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

Our Founding Fathers considered this right so fundamental that they protected it in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, and I believe that citizens who are in compliance with the law should not have that guaranteed right taken away. I am a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus which is a bipartisan group of nearly 300 U.S. Representatives and Senators committed to fish and wildlife conservation and preserving opportunities to hunt, fish and trap.

Additionally, I firmly believe the right to life extends to all people – including the born and unborn. I am a member of the bi-partisan Congressional Prayer Caucus and believe that our nation must never be ashamed of its Judeo-Christian roots and faith.

 

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act

In April of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a statement noting her co-sponsorship of the PreNatal Nondiscrimination Act.

Bachmann Supports PreNatal Nondiscrimination Act

Washington, D.C., Apr 1, 2009 -

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) today cosponsored the PreNatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit sex-selection abortion and race-selection abortion.

“Congress has repeatedly criticized other nations for promoting sex-selection abortions – and rightfully so. But, Congress has yet to do anything to end the practice right here in the United States,” said Bachmann. “Every child deserves the chance to live – little girls every bit as little boys. Every child has the right to life – regardless of race. The fact that federally funded institutions perform abortions based on sex and race in 2009 is abhorrent and we must put an end to it today.”

 

Plan B

In April of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an article discussing the push to get Plan B contraceptives introduced to girls at younger and younger ages.

Is No Girl Too Young for Plan B?
4/23/2009 | Email Michele Bachmann | All Posts By Blogger

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration said it will acquiesce to a New York federal court's order to allow 17-year-old girls access to the “morning after pill.” The FDA’s decision reverses a restriction put in place by the FDA under President Bush that prohibited girls under the age of 18 from accessing so-called Plan B birth-control pills.

What this means is that 17-year-old girls will now be able to obtain “morning after pills” over the counter with just an ID displaying their date of birth -- and nothing else.

What's even more troubling is that the judge also told the FDA to reconsider making the drug available to girls of all ages without a prescription.

Regardless of your views on the issue of abortion, the FDA decision and the judge's ruling raise some giant red flags.

One, the FDA has never approved that a high-dose of a drug be available non-prescription when a low dose of the same drug requires a prescription. The low-dose I refer to here is regular birth control pills. Birth control requires a prescription, yet this judge is urging the FDA to allow use of a more heavily concentrated dose with no prescription at all. Does that make any sense?

The reason why birth control requires a prescription is because women need medical oversight when taking it. The same holds true for the “morning after pill” – to say nothing of the parental oversight needed for girls accessing the pills.

According to Wendy Wright with the CWA:

"It can cause blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Women who are sexually active should be regularly tested for conditions that may not produce symptoms. And under-age, sexually-active girls deserve counseling and help in case they are in a coerced or abusive relationship.

"Making the morning-after pill over-the-counter for teenagers denies medical counseling and testing to girls who need mature guidance. A thirteen-year-old who may be pregnant is also a girl who may be sexually abused and at risk of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease."

Two, the FDA may be trampling the will of states and localities and what they feel is best to monitor birth control distribution and regulation. In the United States, each state has different laws and policies about whether or not minors — anyone under the age of 18 — may get contraceptive prescriptions and counseling from a health care professional.

But in those states in which minors can not receive even a prescription for birth control without parental consent, minors will now be allowed to receive the "morning after pill" without not only parental consent, but also without a prescription.

This ruling blatently steps on parents' ability to protect the health and well-being of their minor daughters.

As Wright further notes:

"Minors need permission to go on a field trip, get a piercing, or use a tanning booth. But now, by one judge’s order, girls will be encouraged to rely on an ineffective drug without medical oversight or parental involvement."

Another great example of putting politics before common sense.

 

Floor Speech - Taxpayer Funding

In June of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann spoke on the House floor about taxpayer funding and abortion.

 

Support for March for Life

In January of 2010, Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting her participation in a Right to Life March.

Bachmann Participates in the Minnesota March for Life

St. Paul, Jan 22, 2010 - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) addressed hundreds of Minnesotans today at the State Capitol as they gathered to take part in the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life March for Life to observe the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Congresswoman Bachmann issued the following statement to commemorate the event:

“As millions of Americans March for Life today, it's important to remember what is at stake because in one year alone, we’ve seen an onslaught of attacks on life and the unborn from this Congress and this Administration.

“We saw Democrats vote overwhelmingly against an amendment that would make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive money for so-called ‘family planning’ services through appropriations funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. We saw the ban lifted on abortion funding for the District of Columbia. Funding for abstinence education was eliminated as well. And almost a year ago to this day after Americans marched to remember the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the President rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby making available millions of dollars to foreign NGOs that promote and perform abortion. The list goes on. While the majority of Americans are increasingly identifying themselves as pro-life, we have a Washington controlled by liberal Democrats who are hell-bent on promoting abortion as a viable means of birth control. It just doesn’t make sense and more importantly, these actions are grossly out of touch with the American people.

“While Americans take time today to remind their elected officials of the importance of human life, we remember that we are not alone. Communities, churches, non-profits and dedicated individuals are working hard to educate unexpected mothers and fathers and provide care and supplies for those who decide to foster and not destroy life. If our efforts mean a single life is saved, it is worth it, for there is no value on the difference one life can make.”

 

New Hampshire Debate

On January 14, 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. When asked about her position on abortion and the exceptions for rape an incest, she states that she is fully pro-life and the instances of those cases are small compared to the overall topic of abortion.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

 

Support for Defunding Planned Parenthood

In February of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting her support for defunding Planned Parenthood.

Bachmann Joins Colleagues to Defund Planned Parenthood

Washington, Feb 10 -

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) joins her colleagues in efforts to defund Planned Parenthood from receiving any further federal dollars.

“As a co-sponsor of the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act introduced by Representative Mike Pence (IN-06), I know Congress must take up this critical issue right away. Tax dollars have been flowing to this heinous organization far too long.

“Recently we witnessed corruption in Planned Parenthood centers as undercover videos showed employees coaching underage sex rings. Clearly the greed of Planned Parenthood has driven the organization to new depths. Performing abortions – ending a heartbeat in the womb – is no longer enough.

“Written into the Declaration of Independence is the right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. But by Planned Parenthood’s own records 324,008 abortions were performed in 2008 and 2009. These children had their rights robbed from them. America was founded as a moral nation but this is a far deviation from that standard. Our nation must return to its moral roots. I will continue to expose the corruption of Planned Parenthood until every penny of federal funding to them is dried up.”

 

New Hampshire Debate

In June of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. She was asked about the exceptions of rape and incest and stated that she was 100% pro-life.

Tom Foreman is standing by up in Rochester.

FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general -- genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.

 

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Congresswoman Bachmann participated in a forum that was hosted by Mike Huckabee. In that forum, she was asked about her support for a constitutional amendment and states her support for such a measure.

 

Campaign Website Statements

Minnesota Values

As a strong advocate for a culture of life, I have earned the support of the Susan B. Anthony List, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), and the National Pro-Life Alliance. My legislation, the Positive Alternatives Act, makes it clear that the pro-life position supports the unborn child and the mother.

As a former foster-mother for 23 children, I have been an advocate for foster families in Congress and was recently appointed to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s Advisory Board. In fact, I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee for my School Choice for Foster Kids Act, which would provide some stability for foster children.

In the State Senate, I led the charge to free Minnesota education from the federal No Child Left Behind mandates and in Congress I am continuing my work to return control over education to parents and local educators.

I fully support Minnesota’s hunting and fishing heritage, earning me the backing of the NRA and sportsmen across the District.

 

Voting Record

Amendment - Planned Parenthood Funds

In February of 2011, the House passed an amendment to prevent the use of funds by Planned Parenthood. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the amendment to prevent funds from going to planned parenthood.

Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the amendment to prevent funds from going to planned parenthood.

 

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 1063; Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to safe the life of the minor. Prohibits the prosecution of the doctor if he: (1) reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the required parental consent or notification or judicial authorization took place; or (2) was presented with documentation showing that a court waived parental notification requirements or authorized the minor's abortion.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 3442; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

Requires an abortion provider who knowingly performs an abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as 20 weeks) to first: (1) inform the woman of the probable age of the child; (2) provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt); (3) provide information that pain medicine administered to the mother may not prevent pain in the child, but in some cases anesthesia or pain-reducing drugs can be administered directly to the child; (4) give the woman the provider's best medical judgment of the risks and costs of such anesthesia or analgesic; and (5) obtain the woman's signature on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child. Creates an exception to save the life of the mother.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 3; No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 217; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS) from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy. Excludes hospitals from such requirement so long as the hospital does not provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion. Requires the Secretary to annually provide Congress: (1) information on grantees who performed abortions under the exceptions; and (2) a list of entities to which grant funds are made available.

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 358; Protect Life Act - Cosponsor

Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 5939; No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits: (1) the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law for any abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion; (2) any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion; and (3) the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 634; Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Cosponsor

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 5276; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2010 - Cosponsor

Amends the Public Health Service Act to require an abortion provider who knowingly performs an abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development of 20 weeks or more after fertilization), to first: (1) inform the woman of the probable age of the child; (2) provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt); (3) provide information that pain medicine administered to the mother may not prevent pain in the child, but in some cases anesthesia or pain-reducing drugs can be administered directly to the child; (4) give the woman the provider's best medical judgment of the risks and costs of such anesthesia or analgesic; and (5) obtain the woman's signature on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure that includes a statement that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child. Creates an exception to save the life of the mother. Establishes civil penalties for willfully failing to comply with this Act. Authorizes: (1) the U.S. Attorney General to bring a civil action under this Act; and (2) private rights of action for violations of this Act.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 614; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 649; Ultrasound Informed Consent Act - Cosponsor

To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 881; Right to Life Act - Cosponsor

Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 1063; Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Cosponsor

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 3442; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 618; Right to Life Act - Cosponsor

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 5032; Ultrasound Informed Consent Act - Cosponsor

To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 4133; Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act - Cosponsor

To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 6453; Schoolchildren's Health Protection Act - Cosponsor

Amends the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit the provision of federal education funding to state or local educational agencies that provide unemancipated minors with postcoital emergency contraception or prescriptions for such contraception on the premises of elementary or secondary schools.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 708; Abortion and Foreign Organizations - Cosponsor

To restrict assistance to foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortions.

Herman Cain

Summary

Herman Cain is pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. He supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and has noted that the organization was started by someone with the stated goal of lowering the number of African-American children.

 

Bryan Fischer Interview

On January 18, 2011 Mr Cain was interviewed by Bryan Fischer on the radio and noted that he was pro-life and that life begins at conception. He also states his support for defunding planned parenthood. He cites the history of planned parenthood and it's origination as an organization to lower the population of black children.

I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side,” he said. “I’m a Christian, I’ve been a Christian all my life. I’ve been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I’m very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated in their career, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that.”

“Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as president, if I run and get elected — not rewrite those documents.
 

...

“I absolutely would defund Planned Parenthood — not because I don’t believe in planning parenthood, [but because] Planned Parenthood as an organization is an absolute farce on the American people,” he said.

Cain, who is African-American, accused the abortion business of engaging in a racist agenda.

“People who know the history of Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, they know that the intention was not to help young women who get pregnant to plan their parenthood. No — it was a sham to be able to kill black babies 

 

Race42012 Interview

In February of 2012, Herman Cain was interviewed by race42012. While Cain noted his pro-life stance, he agrees that abortion will not be a primary issue in the 2012 elections.

MRN: It is well documented that you are pro-life. How do you feel that, as President, you would be able to help promote a culture of life?

HC: While I do believe that the economy and national security are the most important issues facing our country, I am a firm believer in the dignity of life and support a ban on partial birth abortion. If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life. Additionally, I would be in favor of any legislation that would encourage adoptions as a loving and safe alternative to abortion.

I also support a complete federal defunding of Planned Parenthood. American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for abortions that destroy life and harm the mother. Furthermore, the roots of the organization, as pointed out in Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Facism,” are Margaret Sanger’s desire to perform eugenics and ultimately, destroy the black race. Many of America’s most revered civil rights leaders, such as Niger Innis and Dr. Alveda King, would attest to this fact.

 

Campaign Event

On April 28, 2011 in Rochester New Hamshire, Herman Cain spoke at a campaign event and discussed his views on abortion. He notes that he believes that life begins at conception.

 

Palmetto Freedom Forum

In August of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina. He was asked about abortion and states that he would support Congressional action to limit abortion via the 14th amendment.

PROF. ROBERT GEORGE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: My first concerns our obligations to human life and also the constitutional powers of the respective levels and branches of government. I want to preface it by recalling Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. He was faced with an unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Dred Scott decision, which usurped the authority of the elected representatives of the people, the Congress, and the president and purported to bind their hands indefinitely and decisively.

Now, many argue today that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the court's usurpative decision in Roe vs. Wade. However, we have what President Lincoln didn't have, which is a 14th Amendment to the constitution, which was of course, ratified after Lincoln's untimely death. And section five of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section.

So as someone who believes as I know you do in the inherent and equal dignity, including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions even short of a constitutional amendment overturning Roe vs. Wade?

CAIN: Yes, I could support that.

GEORGE: And would you be prepared to confront the Supreme Court if it came to that, take your case to the American people?

CAIN: I would take my case to the American people. But first, let the Congress challenge the United States Congress to do its job. I have a great amount of respect for our system. I don't -- I believe that the president has a responsibility to be president, which means national security number one priority. Secondly, the president has a responsibility to preserve, protect, and enforce the constitution of the United States of America, not try and rewrite it. I don't believe we need to rewrite it. And don't try to work outside of it like we're seeing in the current administration.

And then thirdly, provide the strategic leadership on all of these issues that we face, which means setting a real clear agenda, a people's agenda with the United States Congress. And in engaging the American people in the solutions to many of the problems we face, not creating legislations that are big and complicated that the American people are left out of the loop.

Rick Santorum

Summary

Senator Santorum is stronly pro-life. He has repeatedly asserted that life begins at conception and that that life should be protected under law. Senator Santorum does not beleive in the exceptions that some pro-life people grant for rape. He has stated that the life that results from a rape is innocent and deserving of the protection of the law.

In a 2011 interview, Senator Santorum spoke in a radio interview about his pro-life stances and desire to see Roe vs Wade overturned and the decision on the legalization of abortion returned to the people and the states.

In March of 2011, Senator Santorum generated controversy when he stated that abortion had contributed to the pressure on social security by lessening the number of people in the subsequent generations. He stated that a third of the potential population had not been born due to abortion.

In April of 2011, Senator Santorum discussed his opposition to funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood. He added that the origins of Planned Parenthood were related to eugenics and racism and that the modern day actions of the nation mirror those purposes as abortion clinics are located in predominately minority and poor neighborhoods.

In June of 2011, Senator Santorum reasserted in a Meet the Press interview that did not believe in the exceptions for an abortion in the case of rape. He stated that even under these circumstances, abortion was still taking a life. When discussing how abortion could be controlled, Senator Santorum stated that he believed that doctors who perform abortions should be punished. These sentiments were mirrored in the Iowa debate, when Senator Santorum backed these comments by stating that rapists themselves are not sentenced to murder, but children created in a rape could be aborted even though they had committed no crime. He stated that this pointed to a flawed moral compass in the nation.

Senator Santorum's voting record and legislative history back up his statements. He voted in favor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in 1995, 1997, and 2000, and against resolutions supporting Roe vs Wade. As well as voting in favor of this legislation, Senator Santorum co-sponsored almost all of them. 

 

WHO Radio Interview

In an undated 2011 radio interview, Senator Santorum appears on WHO radio and discusses abortion, Roe vs Wade, and a potential Presidential run. He notes his pro-life stance and his views concerning courts and abortion. He is asked how he would have acted if he was President when the decision in Roe vs Wade was handed down. He states that he would have begun actions to overturn the effects of the decision through legislation. He also discusses the willingness of people to accept abortion and blame the Roe vs Wade decision as if there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

 

Social Security and Abortion

In March of 2011, Senator Santorum appeared on WEZS radio in New Hampshire and was asked about social security. He stated that while social security was a flawed system from the beginning, it was made worse by the number of abortions in the US. He stated that one in three pregnancies end in abortion.

The Social Security system in my opinion is a flawed design, period. But having said that, the design would work a lot better if we had stable demographic trends. The reason Social Security is in big trouble is we don’t have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion.

 

Planned Parenthood

In April of 2011, Senator Santorum spoke at the National Press Club in Washington DC. He stated that Planned Parenthood was an organization that was founded in racism and eugenics and it should receive no federal funding to continue those efforts.

I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind. This is an organization that was founded on the eugenics movement, founded on racism. It's origins are horrific. You can say well, it's not that anymore. It’s not far from where it was in my opinion in its activities and its motivations.

 

New Hampshire Debate

In June of 2011, Senator Santorum participated in the Presidential debate in New Hampshire. He was asked about Governor Romney's position on abortion and spoke about his views on abortion as well.

Senator Santorum, staying with you for a moment, if I may, you are staunchly pro-life. Governor Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. This has been thoroughly discussed. But do you believe he genuinely changed his mind, or was that a political calculation? Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?

SANTORUM: I think -- I think an issue should be -- in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their -- at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that's -- that a factor that -- that should be determined.

You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I've taken the -- you know, I've not just taken the pledge, I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that's a factor that people should consider when you -- when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?

A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and -- and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

 

Meet the Press

In June of 2011, Senator Santorum appeared on Meet the Press with David Gregory and discussed his views on abortion and his view that a child is a human life from conception and should be protected under the constitution from conception on. He does not allow exceptions for rape or incest.

Question: Do you believe that there should be any legal exception when it comes to rape or abortion?

Sen Santorum: I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. 

Question: Even in the case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

Sen Santorum: That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion would be criminally charged for doing so. I've never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do doctors who perform it. I believe that life is sacred. It's one of those things in the Declaration of Independence. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalieanable rights and the first is life, and I believe that life should be protected at the moment it is a human life. At conception, it is biologically human and it is alive. It is a human life and it is a person under the constitution.

 

Iowa Debate

In August of 2011, Senator Santorum was asked about his Meet the Press Comments in June. Senator Santorum responds by stating that the man who committed the rape is not put to death, but the child who committed no crime can be. He states that aborting a child that was conceived in a rape commits a second act of violence.

Question: Senator Santorum, in June you said "I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so." You would allow no exceptions for rape and incest. Polls have long shown that majorities of Americans supports at least some exceptions for abortion. Are your views too much even for many conservatives to support?

Senator Santorum: You know, the supreme court of the United States at a recent case said that a man that committed rape could not be killed, would not be subject to the death penalty. Yet the child conceived as the result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have it's morals correct.

That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. It is a human life, and we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women who have been traumitized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion, I think is too much to ask. So I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.

 

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Senator Santorum participated in a foum that was moderated by Mike Huckabee. He is asked about supporting a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion or returning the issue to the states. He notes that he supports a constitutional amendment defining life.

 

2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements

Champion of Faith & Families

As a husband and father, Rick Santorum knows the importance of protecting and providing for your family. He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation.

During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum fought for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick was the author of legislation outlawing the heinous act known as partial-birth abortion and he championed the fight to pass the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” and the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” He also authored legislation to advance adult stem cell research, so that ethical research could take place to fight debilitating diseases without the moral implications associated with embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.

Rick Santorum not only believes but cherishes the ideal of a culture of life. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick fought for the passage of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), and the “Combating Autism Act” to fight this devastating disease that is affecting more and more of our nation’s children.

When activist judges took it upon themselves to redefine marriage, and with it the underpinnings of the traditional American family and our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Rick successfully fought even members of his own Party and had the amendment brought to the Senate floor for public debate in two successive Congresses. Even though he knew he would be labeled a bigot or worse by members of the liberal elite, Rick Santorum understood this issue was far too important to the future of our society not to be debated before the American public.

Rick understands that our freedom to practice our faith is not just under attack through the redefinition of marriage, but in nearly every facet of the popular culture. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faith could not be discriminated against while on the job. Rick also founded the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom to ensure that the principle of Freedom of Religion would not be infringed upon.

Since leaving the Senate in 2007, Rick has spent much of his time advancing these same principles in the private and non-profit sector. Rick has helped raise funds to support organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List, Americans United for Life, and the National Organization for Marriage. But of all his jobs, Rick is most proud of his time spent as a husband to his wife Karen and a father to their seven children – including serving as the Little League coach for their two youngest sons.

 Executive Branch Actions

As a husband and father, Rick Santorum knows the importance of protecting and providing for your family. He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation. Senator Santorum believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding. As President, Rick Santorum commits to rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values

Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions

  • Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion
  • Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas
  • Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
  • Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers
  • Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court
  • Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties
  • Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
  • Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood
  • Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood

Congressional Directives

  • Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution
  • Call on Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
  • Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
  • Call on Congress to reinstitute Don't Ask/Don't Tell
  • Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
  • Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program
  • Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions

During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum was the national leader for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick led the fight to preserve the traditional family and American values:

  • Banned Partial-Birth Abortions
  • Authored the original Federal Marriage Amendment
  • Wrote and passed the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" and the "Unborn Victims of Violence" Act
  • Led the fight for longer sentences for child predators
  • Named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelical leaders

 

Voting Record

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

The second vote on the legislation came as the bill returned from the US House. In roll call 263, supporters of the bill failed to get the 60 votes required for cloture. The bill did not proceed further as most Republicans supported the legislation and most Democrats oppossed it. Rick Santorum supported the legislation by voting for cloture.

Rick Santorum supported the legislation by voting for cloture.

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

There have been 2 votes in the Senate concerning the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act S 403. The Act prohibited transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion. There was an exception in the bill if the life of the mother was at risk, and those transporting the minor could not be prosecuted if there was reason to believe that the transporters were under the impression that permission had been given from the minor\'s parents. The first vote on this bill came as the bill passed through the Senate. The bill passed the senate in a 54-34 vote with most Republicans supporting it, and about 1/3 of Democrats supporting it. Rick Santorum supported the Notification Act.

Rick Santorum supported the Notification Act.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victim\'s of Violence Act of 2004 (also known as Laci and Connor\'s Law) provides that persons who commit certain Federal violent crimes and thereby cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero shall be guilty of a separate offense. The bill came up vote a vote in March of 2004, and passed with the support of a vast majority of Republicans and about 1/3 of the Democrats. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Partial Birth Abortion

In 1999 the US Senate voted to ban Partial Birth Abortions. The bill defined the term "partial birth abortion" and then made it a crime for a physician to commit such an act. The act defined partial birth abortion as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally: vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially outside the mother's body; performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially outside the mother's body. The bill initially passed the Senate in Roll Call 51 in 2003. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban when it initially came up in the Senate.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban when it initially came up in the Senate.

Expressing the Sense of the Senate in Roe vs Wade

In March of 2003, the Senate voted on a sense of the Senate resolution affirming their support for the Supreme court's decision in Roe vs Wade. The measure passed the Senate 52-46. Rick Santorum voted against the measure and opposed the sense of the Senate in Roe vs Wade.

Rick Santorum voted against the measure and opposed the sense of the Senate in Roe vs Wade.

Partial Birth Abortion

The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban defined the term as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. The bill was voted on separately and in a conference report. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban when it came up in the conference report.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban when it came up in the conference report.

Partial Birth Abortion

After the 2000 Partial Birth Abortion Bill passed the Senate, it went over to the House and was voted on again in roll call 402 to pass the conference report which was the compilation of the bills in the House and Senate. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban in 2000.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban in 2000.

Roe vs Wade

As part of the 1999 partial birth abortion ban, an amendment was introduced to express the sense of the senate in expressing support for Roe vs Wade. The amendment was supported by a majority of Democrats and a few Republicans The amendment passed in a 51-47 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the amendment and thus opposed Roe vs Wade.

Rick Santorum voted against the amendment and thus opposed Roe vs Wade.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997

In May of 1997, the Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 in a 64-36 vote. The Senate did not have the numbers to overturn a Presidential veto. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995

In December of 1995, the Senate passed the partial-birth abortion ban act 54-44. The legislation was vetoed by President Clinton. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban.

Rick Santorum voted in favor of the ban.

 

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Session-108; Bill Number-S 3; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Prime Sponsor

This legislation sought to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. The law authorized the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. The law prohibited the prosecution of a woman obtaining the abortion.

Session-106; Bill Number-S 928; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 - Prime Sponsor

Prohibits any physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Prescribes penalties. Defines a "partial birth abortion". Authorizes the father, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.

Session-105; Bill Number-S 6; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 - Prime Sponsor

Prohibits performing a partial birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother and no other medical procedure would suffice. Defines "partial-birth abortion." Authorizes the father and, if the mother is under 18 years of age, the maternal grandparents of the fetus to obtain specified relief in a civil action, even if the mother consented to the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.

Session-104; Bill Number-S 939; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 - Cosponsor

Subjects anyone who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to a fine or imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Defines "partial-birth abortion." Permits the parents or the maternal grandparents (if the mother has not attained the age of 18 at the time of the abortion) through a civil action to obtain relief which would include money damages for all injuries and statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion, even if any party consented to an abortion. Permits the affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action, which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, that the physician reasonably believed: (1) the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life; and (2) no other form of abortion would have sufficed for that purpose.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 8; Child Custody Protection Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Protects from prosecution or civil liability the minor or the minorís parents for violations of this Act. Prevents prosecution if the doctor reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the required parental consent or notification or judicial authorization took place. Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation of this Act to seek relief in a civil action.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 403; Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits transporting a minor child across a state line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to safe the life of the minor. Protects from prosecution or civil liability the minor or the minorís parents for violations of this Act. Prevents prosecution if the doctor reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the required parental consent or notification or judicial authorization took place or if the doctor was presented with documentation showing that a court waived parental notification requirements or authorized the minor's abortion. Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation of this Act to seek relief in a civil action unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Allows an exception if: (1) the physician complies with parental notification requirements in the physicianís state; (2) the physician is given documentation that a court in the minorís state of residence has waived parental notification or otherwise authorized the minorís abortion; (3) the minor provides a written statement that she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a parent and the physician notifies appropriate state officials of such abuse; (4) the abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor (written notice must be given to the minor's parent within 24 hours after the lifesaving abortion is performed): or (5) a person accompanying the minor provides documentation to the physician that such person is the parent of the minor.

Session-108; Bill Number-S 851; Child Custody Protection Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits transporting a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion and thereby abridging the right of a parent under a law in force in the State where the minor resides requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor. Specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this Act. Prevents prosecution of the doctor if he reasonably believed that before the minor obtained the abortion, the parental consent or notification or judicial authorization that would have been required had the abortion been performed in the State where the minor resides, took place. Authorizes any parent who suffers harm from a violation to obtain appropriate relief in a civil action.

Session-106; Bill Number-S 661; Child Custody Protection Act - Cosponsor

Prohibits transporting an individual under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor. Specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this Act. Makes it an affirmative defense to a prosecution for, or to a civil action based on, such a violation that the defendant reasonably believed that before the individual obtained the abortion, the parental consent or notification or judicial authorization that would have been required had the abortion been performed in the State where the individual resides, took place.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 51; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 - Cosponsor

Requires an abortion provider, before beginning any abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as 20 weeks old) to make a specified statement to the pregnant woman that Congress has determined that there is substantial evidence that the process will cause the unborn child pain, and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child. The doctor must also provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt) and an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form, and obtain the woman's signature and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child. Creates an exception for certified medical emergencies.

Session-108; Bill Number-S 2466; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2004 - Cosponsor

Require an abortion provider, before beginning any abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as 20 weeks) to make a specified statement to the pregnant woman that Congress has determined that there is substantial evidence that the process will cause the unborn child pain, and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child. The doctor must provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt) and an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form. The doctor must obtain on the form the woman's signature and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child.

Session-106; Bill Number-S 1692; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 - Prime Sponsor

This legislation sought to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. The law authorized the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. The law prohibited the prosecution of a woman obtaining the abortion.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 403; Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act - Cosponsor

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 8; Child Custody Protection Act - Cosponsor

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 51; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 - Cosponsor

A bill to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Session-109; Bill Number-S 1983; Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 - Prime Sponsor

Amends the Public Health Service Act to include a health care entity's refusal to provide coverage of, or pay for, induced abortions among the bases for which the federal government or any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance may not discriminate against such an entity.

Newt Gingrich

Summary

Congressman Gingrich is pro-life. In a 2005 interview, Congressman Gingrich stated that abortion should be illegal, but was unsure about how to enforce that provision. He stated that punishing doctors who perform the procedure was preferable to punishing women who have an abortion.

In 1995, Congress put forth an amendment in response to Clinton administration actions that defined an abortion in response to rape or incest as medically necessary that allowed each state to opt out of this provision and decline funding. While Congressman Gingrich stated that he himself supported funding for cases of rape or incest, he supported the amendment.

In 2011, Congressman Gingrich supported an Ohio law that made abortions illegal after a detectable heart beat is present. His campaign literature for the 2012 Presidential election states that he supports reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, supports cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and opposes federal funding for abortion.

While in office, Congressman Gingrich twice voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

In December of 2011, Congressman Gingrich signed the Personhood USA pledge. This pledge indicates that the signee does not support the exceptions for rape and incest.

 

Abortion Funding for Rape/Incest Victims

The Hyde amendment states that federal funding for abortion cannot be used for abortion unless the abortion is medically necessary. In 1993 the Clinton administration made move to define the cases of rape and incest as medically necessary. House Republicans put forth an amendment to allow states to decline funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest. On March 2, 1995 Congressman Gingrich was quoted as supporting the amendment.

This is not an issue which is going away. Each side of the issue will try to find their best advantage in bringing it up. All we can do is try to find a common ground to hold ourselves together while we have the debate.

The actual wording of the amendment is identical to existing statutes and clarifies congressional intent, allowing but not requiring states to pay for abortions. I support the Istook amendment.

On April 9, 1995 Congressman Gingrich appeared on "Face the Nation" and noted that he supported funding for an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother.

No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step. ...

My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion. There are remarkably few Americans who favor abortion as a contraception or who think of abortion as a trivial matter. And so I think we can have a pretty large area of civil discussion without it breaking down into automatic hostility."

 

American View Interview

In 2005, Congressman Gingrich was interviewed by American View to discuss his book "Winning the Future." In that interview, they discussed abortion.

L: Since your book is titled “Winning the Future,” and nations who kill their children have no future, literally, I was surprised that you had nothing to say in your book about abortion which is, I think, the premier moral issue in our country.

G: Abortion is a very, very important moral question and I think it’s a very important question about the very nature of society. And I think that in terms of voting on the issue and speaking on the issue I’ve been pretty clear in my entire career. I did cite at the beginning of the book, that I think that people who are not certain how they feel about “right to life,” have in fact been coming our way. And that was the issue on what do you do if somebody killed the baby while they are attacking the mother? Does that mean that the person attacking is potentially charged with two crimes, again the Lacy Peterson kind of case. Literally something like 86%- 88% of the people agree that in that kind of circumstance, the person has indeed killed a baby and that’s a very important discussion point to include in the discussion of the culture of life.

L: Well, I think that one of the things that really did surprise me about your basically saying nothing about abortion, was that it would have easily fit into chapter 4 about “out of control courts.” But there was no mention made in that chapter even though Roe vs. Wade was the most out of control, controversial case in modern times, maybe ever, which resulted in the killing of more than 40 million innocent, unborn babies since 1973. So, it would have seemed like a good place to mention abortion, in chapter 4.

G: I think you can make the argument that there were a number of cases involving “right to life” which could have gone into that chapter. I don’t disagree with that.

L: Sure. You think abortion should be a crime?

G: (Pause) I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I’m not sure.

L: OK, I’m not sure what that means —- it should not be legal. Would you make it a law that would consider it a crime to perform an abortion, or for a woman to have one? Should there be any legal protection for the unborn as far as you’re concerned?

G: There should be. And I think the focus has been on doctors performing abortions. And in that sense that we want to move the society as rapidly as we can that people should select adoption rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable.

 

Support for Ohio Heartbeat Law

In May of 2011, Congressman Gingrich announced that he was supporting an Ohio law that would make it illegal to obtain an abortion after a heartbeat was detectable.

 

Personhood USA Pledge

In December of 2012, Congressman Gingrich signed the Personhood USA pledge. The pledge is shown below and indicates that a person does not support the exception for rape and incest for abortions.

I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
 

I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.
 

I pledge to the American people that I will defend all innocent human life. Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.
 

If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.

 

2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements

PROTECTING LIFE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
"There is no liberty without religious liberty” – Newt Gingrich

The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights - from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.
Principles to protect life and religious liberty

  1. Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
  2. Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government.
  3. End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
  4. Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
  5. Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
  6. Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
  7. Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
  8. Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.

 

Voting Record

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

296-132. The legislation sought to prohibit any physician from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Newt Gingrich voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Newt Gingrich voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

In March of 1997, the House passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act 295-136. The legislation did not have enough votes to overturn a veto. Newt Gingrich voted in favor of the Ban.

Newt Gingrich voted in favor of the Ban.

 

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

Mitt Romney

Summary

Mitt Romney began his political career in Massachussetts as a pro-choice candidate. This included his 1994 unsuccessful run for the Senate and his 2002 bid that earned him the Governor's seat. He announced his conversion to pro-life after being confronted by a 2004 law to allow "fetus farming" and that while he had always been pro-choice in theory, when faced with the reality of the situation he realized that he was pro-life. He has held this position since that time.

While seeking the Presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012, Governor Romney has asserted that life begins at conception, and that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the issue returned to the states. He has stated that once this is done, he would support a Human Life Amendment to ban abortion across the country.

1994 Senate and 2002 Gubernatorial Campaign

While running for the US Senate in 1994, he stated that abortion should be legal in the US, and that Roe vs Wade should be sustained and supported. He also noted a story where a friend of the family died after obtaining an illegal abortion.

While running for Governor in 2002, Mitt Romney asserted in a debate that he would preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and that he would not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws. He repeated this pledge in an interview and a 2002 debate where he stated that as Governor, he would be devoted and dedicated to upholding a Massachusetts abortion laws.

Changing Viewpoint

By 2005, several sources were questioning Governor Romney's position on the issue of abortion. In May of that year, in an interview relating to a proposed stem cell research law, Governor Romney reiterated his stance that he would not alter or threaten Massachussetts pro-choice laws. He asserted that as Governor, his views had not affected Massachussetts laws relating to abortion.

In July of that year, Governor Romney vetoed legislation that would have made the morning after pill available for minors without a prescription. To describe this action, he wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe and asserted that the measure would terminate a life after conception. He asserted that signing this legislation into law would violate his pledge to Massachussetts voters not to alter state laws relating to abortion. In that same op-ed, he stated that he was in fact pro-life and that he believed that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.

In 2007, Governor Romney stated that he was converted to a pro-life stance by a 2004 proposed law that would have allowed for "fetus farming" and the growth of embryonic stem cells for the purposes of destruction and reseach. He stated that while he had been previously pro-choice in theory, when confronted with the real effects of that choice, he felt compelled to act to prevent the destruction of life. He noted that while he opposed this law and converted to pro-life, he felt that he had not violated his oath to uphold standing Massachussetts abortion laws.

2008 Presidential Campaign

In May of 2007, Governor Romney asserted in an interview that he had always been personally pro-life and that he had taught that view to others in his  faith. He stated that his real question was what role the government should play. He noted that the Supreme Court made a decision and he supported that decision. However, after watching the impact of that decision as governor of Massachusetts and the cheapening of life in the debate concerning cloning and embryo farming, he believed that a civilized society has to respect the sanctity of human life. He finished by asserting that in his view, the people should make this decision, not the court.

Later in that year, Governor Romney stated in a debate that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people to put in place pro-life legislation if they desired to do so. He noted that it was his aspiration that at some point we'll see a nation that doesn't have abortion, meaning that the desire of any person to seek an abortion no longer existed.

Late in 2007, Governor Romney sent out a mailer asserting that he was the only pro-life candidate in the race that supported the Republican platform of a amendment banning abortion nationwide. When questioned on this, his campaign personal stated that while such an amendment was not possible at this time, overturning Roe vs Wade and allowing the states to decide was possible.

In a December 2007 interview on Meet the Press, Governor Romney asserted that he had always personally been pro-life and that he now fully supported the Republican platform. He stated that as far as all legal questions, life begins at conception but noted that no one could know scientifically.

2012 Presidential Election

Governor Romney's 2012 statements have been identical to those 2008 statements. He has asserted that he believes in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end. When asked about how this view would affect supreme court appointments, Governor Romney stated that he would like to appoint to the Supreme Court justices who believe in following the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench, meaning that in his view the federal government has no right to dictate abortion laws to the states. He added that he would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it.

Governor Romney's 2012 campaign website asserts his pro-life views, and the need to overturn Roe-vs-Wade. He also states that he supports the Hyde amendment to prevent the use of government funds overseas from being used to support abortion. He specifically notes that he will not turn a blind eye to China's one child policy or other policies of forced sterilization.

 

1994 Debate

While participating in a debate in 1994, Mitt Romney stated that he believed that abortion should be safe and legal in the US and that Roe vs Wade was the law of the land and should be supported. He also tells the story of a family friend who passes as a result of an illegal abortion (video shown later).

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v Wade has been the law for over 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that decision.

Many, many years ago, I had a dear close family relative who was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we cannot force our beliefs on others in that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.

 

2002 Gubernatorial Debate

In 2002, Mitt Romney participated in a debate while running for the Governor's office and asked about his position on abortion. He stated that he would preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. He stated that he refused to have the labels of pro-choice or pro-life placed upon him. He stated that he was committed to upholding the right to choose laws in Massachusetts.

Shannon snuck a little extra point in there that I want to address. And that is with regards to my views with regards to a woman's right to choose, and I have been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and I am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws. And with regards to this issue of age of consent, it is currently 18 years old. If one wants to have an abortion, one must have the permission of one parent, and if a parent does not go along, one can go to a judge or justice to get that decision. And so far in Massachusetts history, a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. So I am in favor of maintaining our current law, which is the age of consent at 18, and I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose.

 

2002 WBZ-TV Interview

In 2002, Mitt Romney was interviewed as part of the Governor's race in Massachusetts. He states that he would unequivocally support a woman's right to choose.

So when asked "will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose?" I make an unequivocal answer. Yes

 

Press Conference

In a May 27, 2005 Press Conference, Governor Romney stated that since assuming office, he had been able to maintain his pledge to maintain the status quo with regard to abortion laws.

I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far, I have been able to successfully do that. And my personal philosophical views on this issue are not something that I think should distract from a more critical agenda.

 

Veto of Emergency Contraception Bill

On July 26, 2005 Governor Romney wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe discussing his recent decision to veto a bill allowing emergency contraception. In that op-ed, he states his opposition to abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or to protect the mother's life.

Why I vetoed contraception bill

By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005 (Published in the Boston Globe)

Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.

Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What's more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.

I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state's abortion laws.

I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.

For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born.

In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.

I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.

There is much in the abortion controversy that America's founders would not recognize. Above all, those who wrote our Constitution would wonder why the federal courts had peremptorily removed the matter from the authority of the elected branches of government. The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.

Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.

 

Hugh Hewitt Interview

On July 27, 2005 Governor Romney was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt about his recent veto of the Ru486 bill, and other abortion related topics.

Interview with Hugh Hewitt, July 27, 2005

HH: Governor Romney, big headlines about you in the Boston Globe today, and an opinion piece by you at the same time. And I wanted to check in on this. You vetoed a bill for emergency contraception/emergency abortion. You've come under fire from National Abortion Rights Action League and others on the left. Can you explain why you vetoed the bill, and your opinion piece earlier today?

MR: Well, it's pretty straight forward, Hugh, and that is that many people speak about emergency contraception. But in fact, the drug that they're referring to not only is a contraceptive, but it's also an abortive product. And that is in individuals who've already become impregnated, and that have a living embryo within them, take this drug, and it will end the life of that embryo. So, it's not only a contraceptive, it's abortive. And I promised the people of Massachusetts I would not change Massachusetts abortion laws. Even though I am pro-life, I said I'd leave things where they are. And they can't have it both ways, obviously. They can't keep on saying they want to expand abortion laws. I believe in this case as well that because the product would be available to people under 18 without parental involvement, it would violate a very important principle. And that is when abortion occurs, young women under 18 should have the involvement of their parents in that decision.

HH: You know, Governor Romney, that...I did get that from the Globe article. It's not very widely reported that part of this law being pushed, in fact, removes parental consent from the taking of a very serious pill. And I'm wondering, in Massachusetts, do you need parental consent to get a tattoo? Do you need parental consent, you know, to get a driver's license? Or get married underage?

MR: Isn't it something? In Massachusetts, if you're under 18, you have to get parental consent to get a tattoo, but the abortion rights organizations want to make it such that you can get a abortive morning-after pill if you're under 18, actually, if you're under 10 or 12, whatever age. No age limit whatsoever. And actually, they want to remove the...or reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16, which would mean it's easier to get an abortion in Massachusetts than it would be to get a tattoo. And you know, abortion is a real problem in our nation. Some people call it a right, but no one calls it a good. And we have to make sure that we're mindful of the concerns that people have about this procedure, but fundamentally, at the beginning, we have to respect human life. And the wellsprings of life, it's an element of any civilized society, to have a great concern for life. And that's something which I think is important, even for Massachusetts.

HH: Now obviously, a lot of people around the country are looking at this decision, and your opinion piece today, with interest on your possible run for the presidency in 2008. You've never been described as a pro-life governor. Are you in fact a pro-life governor?

MR: I am a pro-life governor. And I indicated during my campaign that I did not favor abortion. But I'm in a very pro-choice state, and I committed to the people that if elected, I would not change the laws. I would put in place a moratorium if you will, a status quo provision, that there would be no changes in the abortion laws, one way or the other. And so this emergency contraception bill was an effort to sort of get around that, and to try to get me to change my commitment. And I, of course, wasn't going to do that. But I am pro-life. I have made that quite clear today. Usually, I have not used that term. I've just said look. I don't favor abortion. But I wanted to make it clear that over the past two and a half years serving as governor, I've watched an activist court. I've also had the experience of seeing what happens with embryo farming, and embryo cloning being considered. And I just recognized that we have to be very clear in standing up for the importance of the sanctity of life.

HH: Let's break down a couple of specifics. In your piece today, you write except on matters of the starkest clarity, like the issue of banning partial birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. I read that mean that you agree that there is a national consensus that it is a horrific procedure, and that it ought to be banned?

MR: Yes, that's right. With regards to partial birth abortion, I think you have an overwhelming consensus in this country that it's wrong, that it should be banned, and for that reason, I would ban it nationally. With regards to abortion, I think the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, forecast that after a couple of decades of Roe V. Wade being in practice, that abortion would be accepted in America. Well, it's not. It's still highly divisive. And therefore, a one size fits all judicial pronouncement like Roe V. Wade, just isn't the right answer. The right way to approach a controversy of this nature is to allow the democratic process to be carried out in each state. Basically, to allow federalism to work, and let each state take its own course, as to whether or not they're going to be a Roe V. Wade state.

HH: Would you welcome the overturning of Roe V. Wade, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, I would welcome the overturning of that portion of Roe V. Wade that says abortion has to apply in every single state, and removes from the state the opportunity it has to make important decisions of its own. I believe in democracy, believe in the right of states to deal with difficult issues in different ways, state to state. I mean, that's...fundamentally, that's one of the things that allows our country to hang together, is that we allow each state to choose its own course when there's controversy. When we come together with a national consensus, why, we can do something of a national level. But when there's a great deal of controversy, let's let the states deal with it through a democratic process, rather than have a judiciary make a pronouncement of one size fits all.

HH: Governor Romney, a lot of people say you're running for president. Have you made that decision yet?

MR: I certainly haven't. I can't imagine wanting to make that decision until the last possible moment, for anyone. My guess is there about 50 governors thinking about it, and about 100 Senators. But most of us are going to keep on doing what we've been doing. I love being Governor. It's a real battle to be in a state that's so heavily Democratic. But, you know, I'm able to battle for the people, and now and then, win one. And I like the job I got.

HH: Now, in terms of, though, calibrating where Governor Mitt Romney is on the spectrum of Republicans, would you say that George Bush's positions on abortions are your positions on abortion?

MR: Well, I can't find any gap between his view and my view. And I must admit not to have studied every aspect of his position. But he and I agree, I believe, and that is I fundamentally believe that Roe V. Wade has some serious errors, and the application of Roe V. Wade to every state is one of them. I would rather see each state be able to make its own decision on abortion laws, and under that kind of a scenario, if a state were overwhelmingly pro-choice, it could remain so. If a state were overwhelmingly pro-life, it could remain so. And we allow the people and democracy to work the way the nation's founders had intended.

HH: So, you would oppose a Constitutional amendment, one size fits all, banning abortion in the United States?

MR: Well, America's not there yet. I would hope that at some point, America would recognize that over a million abortions a year is just not right. And at the heart and the minds of the people of American would come to agree on a national consensus that abortion should not exist in our land. But we're not there yet. And I've read the president's comments on the same point, and he feels the same way. That's just not where we are as a nation. Instead, where we are is at a point where each state should be able to make its own decision, and allow those states that are strongly pro-life to make laws that fulfill the will of their own citizens.

HH: Now Governor, you've seen the John Roberts nomination. I'm very enthusiastic about it. John and I were in the White House Counsel's office together. Nobody knows what he's going to do when Roe V. Wade presents itself to him as a Justice. Do you approve of the Roberts nomination? Do you think it's a good nomination?

MR: I think Roberts is one of the best nominees that I can recall. This is a person of a superb intellect, and you, I'm sure, know that better than I, because you served with him. But I looked at his academic record, and anyone who graduates Summa Cum Laude from Harvard College, and then graduates with high honors from Harvard Law School, on the Law Review, argues before the Supreme Court 39 cases, sits on the Circuit Court in Washington, D.C. Some call it the First Circuit, if you will, because it's right next to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of qualifications that no one can argue with.

HH: I thought maybe as a Harvard Business School grad, you might look down your nose at the law school across the river there. But in any event...

MR: Well, actually, Hugh, I had the fun of going to both. I went to law school and business school at Harvard...

HH: Oh, I had forgotten that.

MR: I know how tough Harvard Law School is. So anyone who did as well as he did deserves a tip of the hat.

HH: Now Governor, when you come to appoint judges, either in your capacity as governor or should that ever occur that you are in the White House, what will you...will you ask for a litmus test? Will you want to know about Roe V. Wade? Or will you follow the Bush precedent of doing it more on character and credentials?

MR: Well, I think you look for judicial temperament, character, credentials, qualifications, capability. But you also want to see what their judicial philosophy is. And clearly, having an individual who is committed to interpreting the law, interpreting the Constitution and not creating the law, is essential. And that of course means that a person like Judge Roberts would look at a Roe V. Wade, had he been the one that encountered it thirty-two years ago, and he'd said look. This isn't the province of the Supreme Court to decide. This should be decided state by state, in the democratic process, which the founders envisioned. And so now we have a precedent in place, Roe V. Wade, that states have been living with for some years. How he'll deal with that? Who knows? It depends on the case, probably, that's brought before him. But we have the kind of intellect, and the kind of judicial philosophy, that I think is appropriate on the Court. And don't forget. People...you know, they're saying, well let's have a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee. Don't forget. We elected George Bush. He's a pro-life president. He ran as a pro-life president. And he, therefore, as he fills the seats on the Supreme Court, has every right to nominate someone who has his beliefs.

HH: Let me touch on a related issue. You're obviously for parental consent, of minors seeking abortion. You're obviously against the pill that was being marketed there. How about RU...the abortion inducing pill? 435 I think it is, right? That's what it is, yeah. Is that also something you think ought to be heavily restricted? 486, excuse me.

MR: Well, in our state, for instance, if someone brought forward a bill that said let's expand access to RU-486, I would veto that bill. And very simply, I've indicated that as governor here, I do not want to extend abortion rights. I've established, if you will, a moratorium on changing the laws relating to abortion in Massachusetts. So, I would not expand access to RU-486.

 

ABC News Interview

In February of 2007, Governor Romney was interviewed by George Stephanopoulis for ABC News. When asked about his position on abortion, Governor Romney noted that he had become more pro-life and wanted to overturn Roe vs Wade to return control of the issue to the states. Once this was accomplished, he would push for a federal means to outlaw abortion.

Stephanopoulos: You've also described a change of heart on the issue of abortion. You were pro-choice then. You're pro-life now.

So do you now believe that abortion is murder?

Mitt Romney: Abortion is taking human life. There's no question but that human life begins when all the DNA is there necessary for cells to divide and become a human being.

Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. And, therefore, when we abort a fetus, we are taking a life at its infancy, at its very, very beginning roots, and a civilized society, I believe, respects the sanctity of human life.

This is something that I spent a lot of time agonizing over, because I'm personally very much pro-life in my own life, my family's life, but didn't know what the role of government should be and it's been something that I've given a lot of thought to.

But at a very critical juncture, about 2.5 years ago, we were discussing embryonic cloning, cloning and embryo farming, and I had the provost of Harvard University and the head of stem cell research from Harvard there.

And at one point, we were talking about this practice, this technique, and one of the individuals said to me, "This isn't really a moral issue."

I said, "Well, why is that?" They said, "Well, because we destroy the embryo at 14 days."

And in my mind's eye, I saw rack after rack of little embryos, of nascent humanity and then them being destroyed or killed one after the other.

And I said, "We have so cheapened the value of human life in this society, that I want to make it clear I'm pro-life."

Stephanopoulos: So if abortion is the taking of a life, should women who have abortions and doctors who perform them be jailed?

Mitt Romney: My view is that we should let each state have its own responsibility for guiding its laws relating to abortion.

My preference would be to see the Supreme Court do something which is up to them, not up to me. Even if elected president, I don't guide this. The Supreme Court does.

But I'd like to see the Supreme Court allow states to have greater leeway in defining their own laws.

Stephanopoulos: But if it's killing, why should states have leeway?

Mitt Romney: You know, that's one of the great challenges that we have. There are a lot of things that are morally very difficult and, in some cases, repugnant that we let states decide.

For instance, Nevada allows prostitution. I find that to be quite repugnant as a practice.

Stephanopoulos: But murder is illegal in every state.

Mitt Romney: And so we let states make some of these very difficult decisions. That's one of the difficulties here.

Also, I feel a great empathy for women who have difficult decisions in this regard. I don't want to impose my view on the lives of women, and yet this is one of those points where mature men and women have to come together and say, "What's the right course?" And in my particular view, I believe in life, I believe in respecting life, and I believe that we should, as a series of states, allow states to make their own choice in this regard.

Stephanopoulos: But, personally, what do you believe the punishment should be for an abortion?

Mitt Romney: Well, I'm not about punishment. That's not what I'm considering.

I'm saying that, in my view, we should let the states make that decision and I am in favor of life and in favor of choosing life.

Stephanopoulos: So you're not going to say what the punishment should be.

Mitt Romney: I don't begin to have any idea for what a particular state's decision should be. I think the...

Stephanopoulos: But you've been governor of a state. You have to have some idea.

Mitt Romney: Well, our state is overwhelmingly a pro-choice state and Massachusetts would, under the construct I suggested, remain a pro-choice state.

This is not about punishment. This is about allowing states to make a decision on an issue of great moral significance to a lot of people and I think, state by state, we should allow a federalist approach as it relates to the issue of abortion.

 

National Review Institute

In January of 2007, Governor Romney spoke at the National Review Institute and stated that he had changed his views on abortion.

There's one key social issue where I do not count as a social conservative, at least one, and that was with regards to abortion. I said that I would protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. And I've changed my view on that as you probably know. 

... On abortion, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative, and neither was Ronald Reagan by the way. But like him, I learned with experience. In my experience, the point where that has come most to bear was with regards to learning about stem cell research. Let me tell you, there are so many ways to get stem cells, and you know that so we don't have to go into that. So my legislature was proposing legislation to redefine when life began. I think it's interesting that legislation thinks it has the capacity to make that determination. Our state had always said that life began at conception, but now they were gonna redefine when life began. 

And so I spent some time going through and learning, by the with some of the people in this room who helped, about of the different types of sources of stem cells. Adult stem cells, umbilical stem cells, and stem cells for existing lines, but also embryos from in vitro fertilization. And I supported, by the way, those, all of those. 

But for me there was a bright line when we started creating new life for the purpose of destruction and experimentation. And so cell transfer, cloning, and also what's known as embryo farming. And at one point, I was sitting down with the head of the stem cell research department at Harvard, and the Provost at Harvard university. And they were explaining these techniques to me and I somehow imagined in my mind this embryo farming. Embryo farming is taking donor eggs and donor sperm and putting them together in a laboratory and creating a new embryo. If that's not creating life, I don't know what is. I imagined this row after row after row of these racks where embryos were created either by this cloning process or this farming process, and at that point one of the two gentlemen said "Governor, there's really not a moral issue at stake here." And he said "because we destroy the embryo at 14 days." I have to tell you that that comment and that perspective hit me very hard.

As he left the room with his colleague, I turned Harriet Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and said "I wanna make it real clear. We have so cheapened the value and sanctity of human life in our society that someone can think that there's not a moral issue because we kill an human embryo at 14 days. 

From that day thereafter, I announced that I was firmly pro-life. You don't have to take my word for it by the way. The nice thing about looking at a Governor is that you don't have to just look at what they say, you can look at what they've done. Over my term, I had about four or five different measures that came to my desk, and on every single one of them I came down on the side of respect for human life.

By the way, that didn't make me real popular in the state, remember in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy is considered a moderate.

 

South Carolina Debate

In May of 2007 Governor Romney participated in the South Caroline Presidential debate. He was asked about his previous position on abortion in relation to his current position.

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, in 1994 you said you were a stronger advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. As recently as five years ago you still supported a woman's right to choose. And as governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. Are you a clear and consistent conservative?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. An in the -- with regards to gay rights, I have always been somebody who opposes discrimination. But I also consistently feel that it's critical to have marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. If you ever bought a suit and you look at it and you can't tell if it's blue or black, that's how blue Massachusetts is. And in that state I've had to stand up for life, and I have. I've had to stand up for traditional marriage, and I have.

In that very difficult state, I stood to make sure that we could have English immersion in our schools, because I think kids should be taught in English. I fought for the death penalty. I fought for abstinence education.

In the toughest of states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

I have the kind of leadership that will allow America to build upon the same kind of reputation and heritage that we got from our conservative founders in this party.

...

MR. GOLER: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, obviously, a terrible circumstance that you described; something of that nature, it just makes you sick. And I can't imagine my heart not being wrecked by virtue of having a circumstance like that presented to me.

I can tell you that I've looked at this long and hard. I've always been personally pro-life. I've taught that to others, it's been part of my faith. The question for me was: What should government do in this kind of setting? And the Supreme Court stepped in and took a decision, and I said I'd support that decision. And then I watched the impact of that decision as I was governor of Massachusetts. And when we came to debating cloning and embryo farming and we saw human life, human life rack after rack that's going to be experimented upon and then disposed, I said Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we've cheapened the value of human life. And I believe that a civilized society has to respect the sanctity of human life.

And what I'm saying is that, in my view, the people should make this decision, not the court.

 

CNN Interview

In June of 2007, Governor Romney was interviewed on CNN and asked about his changed position on abortion. He states that while he ran as essentially pro-choice, but his record as Governor indicates that he was pro-life. He notes that he simply changed his mind.

CNN: You have said, or at least indicated that "Look, I've changed my mind, people should move on, they should allow me to change my mind."

Governor Romney: No, I'm saying that I've changed my mind, and you can look at my record as governor, in you can see in my record as governor that I have consistently been pro-life on every piece of legislation that dealt with life.

CNN: Even though you were effectively pro-choice?

Governor Romney: You know ... As Governor ... All the decisions that I made as governor on all the bill that came to my desk, I came down on the side of life. So when I ran for office, I was effectively pro-choice. I didn't call myself pro-choice, but I said that I would keep the law the way it was, but the first time as governor that I saw a piece of legislation that dealt with life, I came down on the side of life.

CNN: But can you see how people get confused on that?

Governor Romney: You know, if you've never changed your mind on anything, if you've never felt at some point that you've learned from experience, and as a result, you changed your mind, if someone has never done that, well then he probably doesn't understand how it happens.

 

New Hampshire Debate

In the September 2007 Presidential debate, Governor Romney was asked about abortion, and his two-step solution for addressing abortion.

GOLER: Thank you, Congressman.

Governor Romney, your aides say you see ending abortion as a two- step process: rolling back Roe v. Wade, which would leave it legal in some states; and then a constitutional amendment to ban it nationwide.

If abortion is murder, how can you live with it being legal in some parts of the country and for how long could you do so?

ROMNEY: Well, I think all of us -- I believe almost all of us in the room would say that we'd love to have an America that didn't have abortion. But the truth of the matter is...
(APPLAUSE)
... that's not what America is right now. That's not what the American people are right now. And so I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.

ROMNEY: And of course it's our aspiration that at some point we'll see a nation that doesn't have abortion. But until that time, I certainly believe that allowing states and citizens and their representatives to fashion their own laws to protect the sanctity of life is very, very important.

I recognize that for many people, that is considered an act of murder, to have an abortion. It is without question the taking of a human life. And I believe that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of the human life.

But we have two lives involved here -- a mom, an unborn child. We have to have concern for both lives and show the expression of our compassion and our consideration and work to change hearts and minds, and that's the way in my view we'll ultimately have a society without abortion.

 

South Carolina Mailer

In November of 2007, Governor Romney's Presidential campaign sent a mailer addressing the issue of abortion. The mailer stated that Governor Romney was:

the only major presidential candidate who supports the Republican party's pro-life platform: A constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide.

When questioned about the mailer, Romney's advisor on "life issues," James Bopp, Jr., stated that Romney believes an amendment is "not possible right now" because the votes are not there, "but what is possible is reversing Roe vs. Wade." Bopp also stated that Romney's state approach is consistent with "a federalism approach" because a constitutional amendment would ultimately require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

 

Meet the Press

In December of 2007, Governor Romney appeared on Meet the Press and was questioned about his position on abortion. His statements in 1994 and 2002 are shown in which he declared that a woman's right to choose should not be infringed, and asked about his support for the official Republican platform against abortion. He stated that he supported the official Republican party platform that abortion should not be legal. He stated that he desired to see Roe vs Wade overturned and control of the issue returned to the states. He also stated that he would support a "Human Life Amendment" to ban all abortion across the state.

Governor Romney: Well, you know Tim I was always personally opposed to abortion  as I think almost everyone in this nation is, and the question for me was "What is the role of government?" It was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the supreme court had spoken and that government shouldn't be involved and let people make their own decisions. And that all made a lot of sense to me, and then I became governor and the theoretical became reality if you will.

A bill came to my desk relating to the preservation of life. In this case it happened to be a bill that authorized cloning, which was ... and embryo farming ... which would be creating new embryos for the purpose of research and then destroying them. And I brought in people from across the country to talk about this bill ... from theologyns to scientists, the provost at Harvard University and others and talked about it. I recognized as I went through that effort, that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human life.

I didn't hide form that change of heart. I wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe to describe my view that I am pro-life, described why I had changed to become pro-life, and I recognized that it was a change. You can find many many items indicating that my position previous to that time as being effectively pro-choice. I didn't call myself pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. And that position changed. It changed at that point, and every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as governor I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.

Tim Russert: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

Governor Romney: I do. I belief form a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don't pretend to know from a theological standpoint when life begins.

Tim Russert: You didn't try to change the Massachusetts abortion laws?

Governor Romney: I committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or another and I honored that commitment. But each law that was brought to my desk attempted to expand abortion rights, and in each case I vetoed that effort. I also promoted abstinence education in schools. I vetoed for instance an effort to give young women a morning after pill as you call it, who did not have prescriptions. Very young girls without age limitation. So I took action to preserve the sanctity of life, but I did not violate my word of course.

Tim Russert: But when you say that you support a human life amendment to ban all abortions across the country ... What form would that take if a woman had an abortion? Would she be perceived a criminal? Would the doctor who performed it be conceived a criminal? You talked about your family relative who died from an illegal abortion and yet "President Romney" is saying ban all abortions and what would be the legal consequences for someone who participated in those procedures?

Governor Romney: Well, let's do two parts to that. First of all, my view is that the right next step in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe vs Wade overturned. And then to return to the states and the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with life and abortion on their own.

Tim Russert: But Governor play that out. Some states would allow abortion, and others wouldn't. Go back to your relative, they crossed the border into another state or they stay in their own state and have an illegal abortion, what would be the consequences?

Governor Romney: I'll get to the consequences, I promise. But I want to point out that the first step in my view is that Roe vs Wade be overturned, and ultimately as an aspirational goal, I would love it if America came to a point where we are not today where the people of America would welcome a society that did not have abortion. But that's not where we are, so I am not promoting or fighting for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states. I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v Wade. 

And the consequences, they would be like the consequences associated with the bill related to partial birth abortion which of course does not punish the woman. I don't think anyone is calling for punishing the woman.

Tim Russert: But what about the doctor?

Governor Romney: Well in the case of the doctor the kinds of penalties would potentially be losing a license or having some other kind of restriction. In the case of partial birth abortion, the penalty is possible a prison term not to exceed two years.

 

Manchester Town Hall

In June of 2011, Governor Romney spoke at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire and was asked about his views on abortion and if he would support a move to criminalize abortion. He stated that the matter should be returned to the states.

Question: I know that you believe that we should repeal Roe vs Wade, and I was wondering if abortion becomes illegal in some states, should there be criminal sanctions against doctors who still perform abortions or for women who get abortions?

Governor Romney: I don't think that anyone has proposed that have they? ... I don't think that any political person has talked about criminal sanctions. I think that the right thing for matters relating to abortion is very similar to what I have described in other measures which is return this to the states. Let the states make their own choice. I'm pro-life. I think that this is a decision best handled like many other things, at the state level.

 

New Hampshire Debate

In June of 2011, Governor Romney participated in the Republican debate in New Hampshire. He stated that his record on the issue of abortion was clear and that he was pro-life from birth to death.

Romney: People have had a chance to look at my record and look at what I said as I went through that last campaign. I believe that people understand that I am firmly pro-life I will support justices that believe in following the constitution and not legislating from the bench. I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning to the very end.

 

Palmetto Freedom Forum

In August of 2011, Governor Romney participated in the Palmetto Freedom Forum. He was asked about pursuing Congressional action to overturn Roe vs Wade. He states that he would appoint judges that abided by the constitution on abortion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Governor Romney, it's good of you to be with us today. Thank you very much. I want to begin with a very fundamental question that's about both our obligations to human life and also the constitutional powers of the respective levels and branches of government.

I want so begin by recalling Lincoln's situation. In his first inaugural address he confronts the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dread Scott case about slavery in which the court usurped the authority of the elected representatives of the people, the government and the Congress and acted in a way that essentially removed an entire class of human beings, even free blacks from the law's protection that others should have to recognize.

And Lincoln said on that occasion that if the policy of the government on vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that imminent tribunal.

Of course, after Lincoln's death, we enacted a 14th amendment to our constitutional, a 13th, 14th and 15th. I want to ask you about the 14th. Many people say we need to wait for Roe versus Wade to be reversed before Congress can do anything about protecting life in the womb.

However, Section Five of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment's first section.

Now, as someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family including the child in the womb, would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

ROMNEY: Let me tell you what my orientation would be, which is I would like to appoint to the Supreme Court justices who believe in following the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench.

I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that's the appropriate course.

Now, is there a constitutional path to have the Congress say we're going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion.

That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.

What I would look to do would be appoint people to the Supreme Court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I believe that we must be a nation of laws.

 

2012 Campaign Website Statements

Abortion

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

Rick Perry

Summary

Governor Perry is strongly pro-life.  He has supported parental consent legislation, sonogram legislation, and legislation to defund planned parenthood. He has not only pursued pro-life legislation, he has spoken often at pro-life events, about his views on morality, and about the need to protect those who cannot protect themselves. On his 2010 campaign website, Governor Perry states that he is the most pro-life governor in Texas history.

As Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Perry supported a 1999 law requiring that parents of minors be made aware if their child was seeking an abortion 48 hours before the abortion. However, under this law parental consent for the abortion was not required. Governor Perry credited that law with lowering the rate of abortions by more than 25%. In 2005, Governor Perry supported and signed a law to require physicians to obtain signed consent from a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor and failure to do so will result in a license violation. However, the measure allows for judicial bypass in cases of potential abuse or in cases where the minor is deemed mature enough to make the decision on her own.

Governor Perry announced in February of 2009 that he would support Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 36, which were pieces of legislation that would require a woman see an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion and to listen to a doctor's description of the fetus. That particular legislation failed to pass the Texas legislature, but Governor Perry put the 2010 legislation on emergency status and higher Republican majorities were able to consider the legislation early in the next session. The bill passed the legislature and was signed into law in late May 2010. Governor Perry stated that the legislation wold help prevent the tragedy of abortion. The legislation required a sonogram to be performed 24 hours prior to an abortion.

In June of 2011, Governor Perry signed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood of $34 million, and prevent local tax funding for elective abortions by hospital districts.

Governor Perry has also referred to the Roe vs Wade decision legalizing abortion as a tragedy. He stated in a 2010 speech that he looked forward to the day that Roe vs Wade was nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation's history.

  

Support for Parental Consent Laws

In June of 2005, Governor Perry;s office released a statement expressing support for laws that require that the parents of a minor be notified before she has an abortion. Governor Perry stated that the event was a significant marker in the effort to create a culture of life and protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Gov. Rick Perry Signs Parental Consent Bill

Also Ceremonially Signs Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage

FORT WORTH - Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law a bill that strengthens parental rights by giving parents the right to consent before their minor daughters can have an abortion.

“Today we are laying down a significant marker in the effort to create a culture of life by protecting those who can’t protect themselves, by giving voice to the voiceless who yearn for life,” Perry said.

He also ceremonially signed a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, if voters approve the measure on the November ballot.

“History tells us, and most Texans believe, that marriage exists for more than the convenience of consenting adults, but also for the eternal benefit of our children,” Perry said of the constitutional amendment.

In signing the parental consent bill, Perry said, “It has been a tragedy of unspeakable consequences that, for decades, activist courts denied many Texas parents their right to be involved in one of the most important decision their young daughter could ever make: whether to end the life that was growing inside her.”

Perry noted that some have tried to rationalize abortion by concluding that a child is not involved - even though a heartbeat can be detected just weeks after conception - or that abortion is merely a medical procedure without life and death consequences or lasting emotional scars.

“Such rationalization severs our nation loose from the moorings our founding fathers created when they declared more than two centuries ago that the right to life is first among mankind’s unalienable right,” Perry added. “Because of it, an entire generation of unborn children have been forever lost to the tragedy of abortion.”

Perry also noted that although the U.S. Supreme court legalized abortion, that decision does not mean abortions occur without consequence. “And certainly most of us can agree, when it is a child making such a weighty life and death decision, parents should be involved to provide proper guidance,” he said.

“For years we have not allowed a minor to get a tattoo or to receive an aspirin from a school nurse without parental permission. Should we not apply the same standard to such a life and death decision such as abortion?”

The Parental Notification Act that Perry helped pass as Lieutenant Governor has helped reduce abortions 26 percent among girls under the age of 18. Still, more than 3,500 minor girls in Texas still chose to have an abortion as recently as 2003.

“While parents were notified, in none of those cases was a parent allowed to intervene to save the life of their unborn grandchild or to save their daughter from what often leads to a lifetime of regret and heartache,” Perry said.

In ceremonially signing the resolution that will go before voters to define marriage, Perry said that despite the protests of “a vocal minority, the vast majority of people in Texas and across this nation believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.”

To date, 45 states have passed laws to define and protect marriage, and two years ago Perry signed into law Texas’ Defense of Marriage Act.

“But in recent years, we have seen Defense of Marriage laws in other states - and indeed the institution of marriage itself - come under attack by those who want to redefine society’s institutions,” Perry said, adding that activist judges have used their positions “as a platform to advance a narrow agenda in utter opposition to the law of the land and the views of the majority.”

“These actions have brought legal uncertainty to an issue upon which the people are anything but uncertain,” he added. “And more than that, these acts have posed a direct threat to the institution that is the very bedrock of society and the laws designed to protect that institution in states like Texas.”

 

Texas Alliance for Life

In October of 2008, Governor Perry delivered a taped address to the Texas alliance for life. In that video he notes his support for the Texas Alliance for Life and he uses a bible verse to thank the group for working within the legal system to bring our laws in agreement with god's laws.

Good Evening. Anita and I want you'all to know how much we value your friendship and how much we treasure the time that we spent with Texas Alliance for Life, fighting to defend the defenseless. You know for 20 years, you've not only spoken out for those that have no voice of their own, you've taken deliberate and graceful action to defend the unborn.

Romans 13:1 tells us that everyone must submit himself to the governing authority, for there is no authority except that for which god has established. I commend Texas Alliance for Life for not only submitting to governing authorities with humility, but also working hard to change the laws so that they better reflect God's character instead of man's.

Your unwavering support of essential legislation, like the Texas Parental Notification Act, the Prenatal Protection Act, and the Parental Consent laws. They've changed the tone of the debate, and made Texas one of the safest states in the union for the unborn. I am always proud to stand with men and women, Republican or Democrat, who believe in the sanctity of human life.

 

Ultrasound Legislation

Governor Perry announced in February of 2009 that he would support Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 36, which were pieces of legislation that would require a woman see an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion and to listen to a doctor's description of the fetus. That particular legislation failed to pass the Texas legislature, but Governor Perry put the 2010 legislation on emergency status and higher Republican majorities were able to consider the legislation early in the next session. The bill passed the legislature and was signed into law in late May 2010. Governor Perry stated that the legislation wold help prevent the tragedy of abortion. The legislation required a sonogram to be performed 24 hours prior to an abortion.

Gov. Perry Announces Support for Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 36
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 • Press Release

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today announced his support for Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 36, which would require a physician to perform an obstetric ultrasound on a woman at least two hours before a scheduled abortion.

“I am proud of the years we have spent working together to promote a culture of life in our state to strengthen families and protect our children’s future,” Gov. Perry said. “Although we’ve made Texas a safer place for the unborn, our work is far from done, which is why I support these pieces of legislation as simple, common sense additions to the protections we offer the unborn here in Texas.”

The legislation requires ultrasound imaging of the embryo or fetus and an audible heart auscultation to be performed on expecting mothers in conjunction with the physician’s explanation of each procedure. The patient would also have to a sign a written statement certifying requirements are fulfilled before an abortion is performed.

Gov. Perry remains committed to promoting family values and defending unborn children. He recently announced his support of House Bill 109, which would create a “Choose Life” specialty license plate to raise funds to assist pregnant women who are considering adoption as an alternative to abortion for their unborn children.

In 2005, the governor signed Senate Bill 419, which requires physicians to obtain written permission from the parent or legal guardian of a minor child before performing an abortion on that child. The statute gives the Texas Medical Board the authority to enforce this requirement by imposing license violations on physicians who violate it. This law is the most stringent protection of parental rights passed in the state to date.

Gov. Perry: Sonogram Legislation Helps Prevent the Tragedy of Abortion
Signs legislation requiring women to have sonogram before abortion
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 • Austin, Texas • Press Release

Gov. Rick Perry ceremonially signed House Bill 15, which requires a woman to have a sonogram before electing to have an abortion to ensure she is fully informed before making such an impactful decision. The governor designated the measure an emergency item for the 2011 Legislative Session. He was joined by Sen. Dan Patrick and Rep. Sid Miller at the signing ceremony.

"Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy we all must work together to prevent, and I commend Rep. Miller and Sen. Patrick for their hard work on this significant legislation," Gov. Perry said. "This important bill will ensure that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision."

House Bill 15 requires a physician to perform a sonogram 24 hours before an abortion, except in cases of medical emergency. Under this legislation, a physician is required to display the sonogram image, explain the image and make the fetal heartbeat audible.

"House Bill 15 will protect human life: the lives of the unborn victims of abortion, as well as those who are faced with such a life changing decision," said Rep. Sid Miller. "By providing women with a full 24-hour waiting period, this bill will provide expectant mothers with adequate time to review their sonogram and to carefully weigh the impact of their life-changing decision without undue pressure or influence from abortion providers or others."

The bill allows women to opt out of seeing the image and hearing the heartbeat, and requires that they sign a statement acknowledging so prior to receiving the sonogram. A woman may opt out of the verbal explanation of the image only if she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest; she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial bypass; or the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality. Additionally, if the woman lives more than 100 miles from the nearest abortion facility, the waiting period is shortened from 24 to two hours.

"Today is a great day for women's health and unborn children in Texas," Sen. Patrick said. "This bill will greatly improve women's healthcare in Texas, provide women the information that they deserve through informed consent and will undoubtedly save thousands of innocent lives."

Gov. Perry has worked diligently to protect unborn life in Texas, having signed both parental notification and parental consent laws to ensure parents are involved in their minor daughters' major decisions. The governor also signed a ban ensuring tax dollars are not used to support abortion facilities, and helped implement the strictest third trimester abortion ban in the nation. He also supported and signed the Woman's Right to Know Act, and has worked with lawmakers to fund and promote alternatives to abortion. 

  

 

United for Life

In June of 2011, Governor Perry spoke at a United for Life event in Los Angeles. He stated his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and noted a number of views on abortion.

Gov. Rick Perry's Remarks During a United For Life Event in Los Angeles
* Note: Gov. Perry frequently departs from prepared remarks.
Sunday, June 12, 2011 • Los Angeles, California • Speech

Muchas Gracias for that introduction and, more importantly, for the millions of lives you have touched as you have affirmed the value of life.

Buenos dias, Los Angeles!

It is good to be here in California with so many friends -men and women of faith who value human life as a sacred gift from God.

I may be a thousand miles from Austin, Texas, but I feel right at home with you celebrating the gift of life and strengthening one another to fight another day in the defense of the unborn.

Nearly 40 years have passed since the tragedy of Roe v. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since then, more than 50 million children have lost their chance at life, the tragic legacy of judicial activism
and the starkest reminder that our culture and our country remain at peril.

Faced with this scar on our national conscience, in Texas we have pursued policies to protect unborn children whenever possible.

Over the past 10 years we've passed laws requiring both parental notification and parental consent to their daughter's abortion ensuring parents will be involved and ready to provide much-needed guidance and advice at the most critical of moments.

We've funded and promoted alternatives to abortion, providing counseling for women on the other options - options that won't stop their child's beating heart.

I'm especially proud to say that just weeks ago, I signed into law a bill that will not allow any child to be aborted in Texas without the mother first having a sonogram because we believe that unborn children deserve the respect of recognition before their lives are tragically cut short.

I also firmly believe that an informed decision must include knowledge of a better option: adoption.

In the course of my travels and conversations with folks in Texas and beyond, I can't tell you how many people I meet who are dealing with the heartbreak of infertility and the frustration of the unfulfilled desire to be parents.

That is why we must work harder to connect those couples who so deeply desire children with those mothers for whom the prospect of parenthood is too much to bear.

Yes, many children are born into difficult circumstances, but there is no such thing as an unwanted child because no life is trivial in God's eyes.

Who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can't grow to live the most meaningful of lives?

I think of Moses. He was placed in a basket when he was three months old, hidden in the reeds by a river, because of Pharoah's edict to murder newborn Israelite boys.

There he was, weeping for his mother, too young to know his very life was at risk only to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter.

Now, if you were left by the side of a river at three months old, you might say you weren't born into ideal circumstances.

But that's when the story gets good.

Pharaoh's daughter seeks out a Hebrew nurse, who happens to be Moses' mother, and Pharaoh's daughter even paid Moses' mother to nurse him.

And after he had grown a couple years, Moses went to live with the Royal household, all on Pharaoh's credit card.

Amazing. And as we all know, one day Moses would lead his people out of bondage after being raised in the household of his people's oppressor.

There is a lesson in the life of Moses, and it is this: great men and women sometimes rise up from the worst of circumstances.

Every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential because every life is precious

As we consider the other threats to healthy pregnancies, we must acknowledge the increasing acceptance and looming risks of embryonic stem cell experimentation.

In Texas, we have provided funding for adult stem-cell research and treatments, proving top-flight medical research and respect for life are not mutually exclusive.

The research being conducted in Texas holds the promise of healing the body without causing further damage to our society's soul and without compromising the values that make our nation great.

Too bad we can't say the same thing about Washington.

Since President Obama took office, the FDA has broken with longstanding policy and granted permission for embryonic stem cell experiments.

The implications of that decision undercut the protections we have all fought so hard to preserve.

I am deeply disturbed at the prospect of experimentation that uses such tissue turning the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material.

Clearing the way for embryonic stem cell research was only part of President Obama's agenda, however.

Indeed, within his first week in office, he chose to overturn the "Mexico City policy", which basically means that your federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortions all over the world.

With a stroke of his pen, abortion essentially became a U.S. foreign export.

Somehow, the folks in Washington have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the overriding responsibility of every government: to protect citizens at every stage in life, especially those who cannot protect themselves.

Our founding fathers affirmed this right to life in the Declaration of Independence, along with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the gift of life is not granted by any government or any court of law.

As our forefathers correctly understood, life is nothing less than a gift from God and defending that right is a calling worthy of our best.

That's why, as long as I am Texas governor, I will oppose any law that compromises these essential protections.

There is no higher calling, or more basic standard than that.

Reflecting on all the hard work put in by individuals and organizations all across the great land, I wish I could say we were nearing the end of our struggle, but I think you all know better.

Everyone here knows the challenges ahead are significant, even in Texas, where the unborn are more protected than most places.

It breaks my heart to know that in Texas, more than 80,000unborn children are lost to abortion each year.

That's a staggering statistic: 80,000 lives lost before taking their first breath.

So, shoulder-to-shoulder with you, my brothers and sisters of United for Life and your peers across the country, I will stand up for life. Yo defendere el valor de La Vida!

I am proud of each one of you for taking a stand for life.

In doing so, you reap the scorn of the abortion lobby, and the disdain of the forces of secularism.

But it is a just cause, an important calling.

And it's the least we could do in memory of the 50 million lost to the tragedy of abortion.

In the days to come, let's remain united in our respect for life and the Giver of all life.

So keep on voicing your opinions.

Keep on standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

Keep on pressing your elected officials for life-honoring decisions.

In fact, one small step you can take right now is to take out you phones and text the word "VIDA" to 95613, enabling us to stay connected on the issue of life.

Together, we can continue causing effective change here in California, back in Texas or wherever we're from.

Until the day Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation's history books, we can't afford to give up the good fight.

May God bless you, Que Dios los Vendiga, and through you, may He continue to bless this nation we love so much.

Muchisimas Gracias!

 

Defunding Planned Parenthood

In June of 2011, Governor Perry signed Senate Bill 7. That legislation had three primary components.

  • It defunded Planned Parenthood of $34 million
  • It prevents local tax funding for elective abortions by hospital districts
  • It allows the state to regulate autologous adult stem cell banks and encourage more live-saving treatments using adult, not embryonic, stem cells.

 

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Governor Perry participated in a foum that was moderated by Mike Huckabee. He was is asked about whether he would support a constitutional amendment or returning the matter to the states. He states that both should be done.

 

2010 Campaign Website Statements

Gov. Perry on Pro-Life Policy

Gov. Perry is the most pro-life governor Texas has ever had and has implemented a number of significant reforms to protect life and strengthen Texas families across our state.

Abortion. Gov. Perry has worked diligently to make Texas safer for the unborn by signing both parental notification and parental consent laws to ensure parents are involved in their minor daughters’ major decisions. He signed a ban making certain that tax dollars are not used to support abortion facilities and helped implement the strictest third trimester abortion ban in the nation. 

 

Promoting Adoption

Gov. Perry has been a longtime advocate of adoption. One of his many efforts to encourage adoption in Texas includes the creation of an adoption incentive program designed to lessen the financial burden for families to adopt children in foster care. Created in 2007, the program provides a monthly health insurance subsidy of $150 for parents who adopt foster children who do not qualify for Medicaid. This effort, alongside many others, has helped nearly double the number of adoptions in Texas since 2004.

 

Jon Huntsman

Summary

Governor Huntsman is pro-life. He has stated that he supports restriction on abortion except in the cases of rape or incest. In a 2011 speech, he urged the Republican party not to abandon it's focus on abortion by stating that Republicans should not focus on economic life at the cost of human life. He stated that while in office, he signed every piece of pro-life legislation that came across his desk. He has stated that he supports a right to life amendment.

There were three main pieces of legislation dealing with abortion that Jon Huntsman signed into law. These bills were HB 85 in 2006 and HB 90 and HB 222 in 2009. HB 85 required that a minor obtain parental consent prior to getting an abortion. There were exceptions given for the health of the mother and familial concerns. HB 90 makes it illegal to perform an abortion in the second trimester and made it a second degree felony for the physicians to perform such a procedure. There was no punishment for the mother of the fetus. HB 222 dealt with the pain that a child may feel during an abortion. It allowed the mother time to consider medication to ensure that the fetus did not feel pain after informing them that such a thing was a possibility.

 

HB 85 - Parental Consent

In 2006, Governor Huntsman signed HB 85 into law. This legislation required that a minor obtain parental consent prior to getting an abortion.

This bill amends the Utah Criminal Code, the Utah Human Services Code, and the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act to require parental consent and notification for abortions performed upon minors, subject to certain exceptions. Governor Huntsman released a statement in support of the legislation which noted that he supported restrictions on abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

I support efforts to restrict abortion except in instances of rape and incest or where it's necessary to preserve the life of the mother

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
defines terms;
provides that a written report of incest or abuse made in connection with a minor seeking an abortion may not disclose that the minor obtained or considered an abortion;

requires that at least 24 hours before a physician performs an abortion on a minor, the physician shall notify a parent or guardian of the minor that the minor intends to have an abortion, unless:
a medical emergency exists;
the physician reports that the parent or guardian abused the minor or caused the minor's pregnancy by engaging in incest with the minor; or
the parent or guardian has not assumed responsibility for the minor's care and upbringing;
provides that, in a medical emergency, except when it is necessary to immediately perform an abortion, the physician shall notify a parent or guardian of the minor, as early as possible before the abortion, that the minor intends to have an abortion;
removes the requirement that a physician notify the spouse of a married woman that she intends to obtain an abortion;
requires that a minor obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion unless:
the minor obtains the right, by court order, to consent to an abortion without parental consent; or
a medical emergency exists;rn
provides that a minor may petition a court to determine whether a minor should be granted the right to consent to an abortion without parental consent;
provides that the proceedings described above are closed to the public;
provides that a court shall order that a minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent only if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
the minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the abortion and has given her informed consent; or
an abortion would be in the minor's best interest;rn
grants rulemaking authority to the Judicial Council to:
administer the proceedings described in this bill;
provide for an appeal of a decision described in the preceding paragraph;
ensure the confidentiality of proceedings described in this bill and the records relating to the proceedings; and
establish procedures to expedite the hearing and appeal proceedings described inthis bill;
amends the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act and related provisions to conform to the consent requirements of this bill; and
makes technical changes.

Utah Code Sections Affected:

AMENDS:
62A-4a-408, as renumbered and amended by Chapter 260, Laws of Utah 1994
76-7-304, as enacted by Chapter 33, Laws of Utah 1974
76-7-305, as last amended by Chapter 221, Laws of Utah 1997
76-7-305.5, as last amended by Chapter 13, Laws of Utah 1998
76-7-315, as last amended by Chapter 5, Laws of Utah 1996, Second Special Session
78-14-5, as last amended by Chapter 9, Laws of Utah 2001

ENACTS:

76-7-304.5, Utah Code Annotated 1953

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: Section 1. Section 62A-4a-408 is amended to read: 62A-4a-408. Written reports.

(1) Reports made pursuant to this part shall be followed by a written report within 48hours, if requested by the division. The division shall immediately forward a copy of thatreport to the statewide central register, on forms supplied by the register.

(2) If, in connection with an intended or completed abortion by a minor, a physician isrequired to make a report of incest or abuse of a minor, the report may not include informationthat would in any way disclose that the report was made in connection with:
(a) an abortion; or
(b) a consultation regarding an abortion.Section 2. Section 76-7-304 is amended to read:

76-7-304. Considerations by physician -- Notice to a parent or guardian --Exceptions.

(1) As used in this section:
(a) "abuse" is as defined in Section 62A-4a-101; and
(b) "minor" means a person who is:
(i) under 18 years of age;
(ii) unmarried; and
(iii) not emancipated.

(2) To enable the physician to exercise the physician's best medical judgment, the physician shall consider all factors relevant to the well-being of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed including:
(a) her physical, emotional and psychological health and safety;
(b) her age; and
(c) her familial situation.

(3) Subject to Subsection (4), at least 24 hours before a physician performs an abortion on a minor, the physician shall notify a parent or guardian of the minor that the minor intends to have an abortion.

(4) A physician is not required to comply with Subsection (3) if:
 (a) subject to Subsection (5)(a):

(i) a medical condition exists that, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical
 judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant minor as to necessitate the
 abortion of her pregnancy to avert:

(A) the minor's death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor; and
(ii) there is not sufficient time to give the notice required under Subsection (3) before itis necessary to terminate the minor's pregnancy in order to avert the minor's death orimpairment described in Subsection (4)(a)(i);
 (b) subject to Subsection (5)(b):
 (i) the physician complies with Subsection (6); and
 (ii) (A) the minor is pregnant as a result of incest to which the parent or guardian was a
 party; or

(B) the parent or guardian has abused the minor; or (c) subject to Subsection (5)(b), the parent or guardian has not assumed responsibility for the minor's care and upbringing.

(5) (a) If, for the reason described in Subsection (4)(a), a physician does not give the
 24-hour notice described in Subsection (3), the physician shall give the required notice as early
 as possible before the abortion, unless it is necessary to perform the abortion immediately in
 order to avert the minor's death or impairment described in Subsection (4)(a)(i).

(b) If, for a reason described in Subsection (4)(b) or (c), a parent or guardian of a minor
 is not notified that the minor intends to have an abortion, the physician shall notify another
 parent or guardian of the minor, if the minor has another parent or guardian that is not exempt
 from notification under Subsection (4)(b) or (c).

(6) If, for a reason described in Subsection (4)(b)(ii)(A) or (B), a physician does not notify a parent or guardian of a minor that the minor intends to have an abortion, the physicianshall report the incest or abuse to the Division of Child and Family Services within the Department of Human Services.

Section 3. Section 76-7-304.5 is enacted to read:
76-7-304.5. Consent required for abortions performed on minors -- Hearing to allow a minor to self-consent -- Appeals.
(1) As used in this section, "minor" is as defined in Subsection 76-7-304(1).
(2) In addition to the other requirements of this part, a physician may not perform an abortion on a minor unless:
(a) the physician obtains the informed written consent of a parent or guardian of the minor, consistent with Section 76-7-305;
(b) the minor is granted the right, by court order under Subsection (5)(b), to consent to the abortion without obtaining consent from a parent or guardian; or

(c) (i) a medical condition exists that, on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant minor as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert:
(A) the minor's death; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the minor; and

(ii) there is not sufficient time to obtain the consent in the manner chosen by the minor under Subsection (3) before it is necessary to terminate the minor's pregnancy in order to avert the minor's death or impairment described in Subsection (2)(c)(i).

(3) A pregnant minor who wants to have an abortion may choose:
(a) to seek consent from a parent or guardian under Subsection (2)(a); or
(b) to seek a court order under Subsection (2)(b).

(4) If a pregnant minor fails to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor to the performance of an abortion, or if the minor chooses not to seek the consent of a parent or guardian, the minor may file a petition with the juvenile court to obtain a court order under Subsection (2)(b).

(5) (a) A hearing on a petition described in Subsection (4) shall be closed to the public.
 (b) After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall order that the minor may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
 (i) the minor:
 (A) has given her informed consent to the abortion; and
 (B) is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the abortion; or
 (ii) an abortion would be in the minor's best interest.

 (6) The Judicial Council shall make rules that:
 (a) provide for the administration of the proceedings described in this section;
 (b) provide for the appeal of a court's decision under this section;
 (c) ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings described in this section and the records related to the proceedings; and
 (d) establish procedures to expedite the hearing and appeal proceedings described in this section.

Section 4. Section 76-7-305 is amended to read: 76-7-305. Informed consent requirements for abortion -- 24-hour wait mandatory
 -- Emergency exceptions.
(1) No abortion may be performed unless a voluntary and informed written consent, consistent with Section 8.08 of the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics, Current Opinions, and the provisions of this section is first obtained by the attending physician from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed.

(2) Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if:
(a) at least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, a registered nurse, nurse practitioner, advanced practice registered nurse, certified nurse midwife, or physician's assistant [shall], in a face-to-face consultation, orally [inform] informs the woman of:
 (i) consistent with Subsection (3)(a), the nature of the proposed abortion procedure or treatment, specifically how that procedure will affect the fetus, and the risks and alternatives to an abortion procedure or treatment that any person would consider material to the decision of whether or not to undergo an abortion;
 (ii) the probable gestational age and a description of the development of the unborn child at the time the abortion would be performed; and
 (iii) the medical risks associated with carrying her child to term;

(b) at least 24 hours prior to the abortion the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, or, as specifically delegated by either of those physicians, a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, certified nurse-midwife, advanced practice registered nurse, clinical laboratory technologist, psychologist, marriage and family therapist, clinical social worker, or certified social worker has orally, in a face-to-face consultation, informed the pregnant woman that:
(i) the Department of Health, in accordance with Section 76-7-305.5, publishes printed material and an informational video that:

(A) provides medically accurate information regarding all abortion procedures that may be used;
(B) describes the gestational stages of an unborn child; and (C) includes information regarding public and private services and agencies available to assist her through pregnancy, at childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including private and agency adoption alternatives; [and]
(ii) the printed material and a viewing of or a copy of the informational video shall be provided to her free of charge;
(iii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of that assistance is contained in the printed materials and the informational video published by the Department of Health;
(iv) except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), the father of the unborn child is legally required to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, and that the Office of Recovery Services within the Department of Human Services will assist her in collecting child support[. In the case of rape, this information may be omitted]; and
(v) she has the right to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, at no expense to her, upon her request;
(c) the information required to be provided to the pregnant woman under Subsection (2)(a) is also provided by the physician who is to perform the abortion, in a face-to-face consultation, prior to performance of the abortion, unless the attending or referring physician is the individual who provides the information required under Subsection (2)(a);

(d) a copy of the printed materials published by the Department of Health has been provided to the pregnant woman;

(e) the informational video, published by the Department of Health, has been provided to the pregnant woman in accordance with Subsection [(2)] (4); and

(f) the pregnant woman has certified in writing, prior to the abortion, that the information required to be provided under Subsections (2)(a)[, (b), (c), (d), and] through (e) was provided, in accordance with the requirements of those subsections.

(3) (a) The alternatives required to be provided under Subsection (2)(a)(i) shall include:
(i) a description of adoption services, including private and agency adoption methods; and
(ii) a statement that it is legal for adoptive parents to financially assist in pregnancy and birth expenses.

(b) The information described in Subsection (2)(b)(iv) may be omitted from the information required to be provided to a pregnant woman under this section if the woman is pregnant as the result of rape.

(4) When the informational video described in Section 76-7-305.5 is provided to a pregnant woman, the person providing the information shall first request that the woman view the video at that time or at another specifically designated time and location. If the woman chooses not to do so, a copy of the video shall be provided to her.

(5) When a serious medical emergency compels the performance of an abortion, the physician shall inform the woman prior to the abortion, if possible, of the medical indications supporting the physician's judgment that an abortion is necessary.

(6) Any physician who violates the provisions of this section:
(a) is guilty of unprofessional conduct as defined in Section 58-67-102 or 58-68-102; and

(b) shall be subject to suspension or revocation of the physician's license for the practice of medicine and surgery in accordance with Sections 58-67-401 and 58-67-402, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Sections 58-68-401 and 58-68-402, Utah Osteopathic Medical Practice Act.

(7) A physician is not guilty of violating this section for failure to furnish any of
 the information described in Subsection (2), if:
(a) the physician can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician reasonably believed that furnishing the information would have resulted in a severely adverse effect on the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
(b) in the physician's professional judgment, the abortion was necessary to save the pregnant woman's life;
(c) the pregnancy was the result of rape or rape of a child, as defined in Sections 76-5-402 and 76-5-402.1;
(d) the pregnancy was the result of incest, as defined in Subsection 76-5-406(10) and Section 76-7-102;
(e) in his professional judgment the abortion was to prevent the birth of a child who would have been born with grave defects; or
(f) the pregnant woman was 14 years of age or younger.

(8) A physician who complies with the provisions of this section and Section 76-7-304.5 may not be held civilly liable to the physician's patient for failure to obtain informed consent under Section 78-14-5.

Section 5. Section 76-7-305.5 is amended to read:
76-7-305.5. Requirements for printed materials and informational video -- Annual report of Department of Health.

(1) In order to insure that a woman's consent to an abortion is truly an informed consent, the Department of Health shall publish printed materials and produce an informational video in accordance with the requirements of this section. The department and each local health department shall make those materials and a viewing of the video available at no cost to any person. The printed material and the informational video shall be comprehensible and contain all of the following:

(a) geographically indexed materials informing the woman of public and private services and agencies available to assist her, financially and otherwise, through pregnancy, at childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including services and supports available under Section 35A-3-308. Those materials shall contain a description of available adoption services, including a comprehensive list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of public and private agencies and private attorneys whose practice includes adoption, and explanations of possible available financial aid during the adoption process. The information regarding adoption services shall include the fact that private adoption is legal, and that the law permits adoptive parents to pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. The printed information and video shall present adoption as a preferred and positive choice and alternative to abortion. The department may, at its option, include printed materials that describe the availability of a toll-free 24-hour telephone number that may be called in order to obtain, orally, the list and description of services, agencies, and adoption attorneys in the locality of the caller;

(b) truthful and nonmisleading descriptions of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, accompanied by pictures or video segments representing the development of an unborn child at those gestational increments. The descriptions shall include information about brain and heart function and the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development. Any pictures used shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and shall be realistic and appropriate for that woman's stage of pregnancy. The materials shall be designed to convey accurate scientific information about an unborn child at the various gestational ages, and to convey the state's preference for childbirth over abortion;

(c) truthful, nonmisleading descriptions of abortion procedures used in current medical practice at the various stages of growth of the unborn child, the medical risks commonly associated with each procedure, including those related to subsequent childbearing, the consequences of each procedure to the fetus at various stages of fetal development, the possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion, and the medical risks associated with carrying a child to term;

(d) any relevant information on the possibility of an unborn child's survival at the two-week gestational increments described in Subsection (1)(b);

(e) information on the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care;

(f) a statement conveying that it is unlawful for any person to coerce a woman to undergo an abortion;

(g) a statement conveying that any physician who performs an abortion without obtaining the woman's informed consent or without according her a private medical consultation in accordance with the requirements of this section, may be liable to her for damages in a civil action at law;

(h) a statement conveying that the state of Utah prefers childbirth over abortion; and

(i) information regarding the legal responsibility of the father to assist in child support, even in instances where he has agreed to pay for an abortion, including a description of the services available through the Office of Recovery Services, within the Department of Human Services, to establish and collect that support.

(2) (a) The materials described in Subsection (1) shall be produced and printed in a way that conveys the state's preference for childbirth over abortion.

 (b) The printed material described in Subsection (1) shall be printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly legible.

(3) Every facility in which abortions are performed shall immediately provide the printed informed consent materials and a viewing of or a copy of the informational video described in Subsection (1) to any patient or potential patient prior to the performance of an abortion, unless the patient's attending or referring physician certifies in writing that he reasonably believes that provision of the materials or video to that patient would result in a severely adverse effect on her physical or mental health.

(4) The Department of Health shall produce a standardized videotape that may be used statewide, containing all of the information described in Subsection (1), in accordance with the requirements of that subsection and Subsection (2). In preparing the video, the deprtment may summarize and make reference to the printed comprehensive list of geographically indexed names and services described in Subsection (1)(a). The videotape shall, in addition to the information described in Subsection (1), show an ultrasound of the heart beat of an unborn child at three weeks gestational age, at six to eight weeks gestational age, and each month thereafter, until 14 weeks gestational age. That information shall be presentedin a truthful, nonmisleading manner designed to convey accurate scientific information, the state's preference for childbirth over abortion, and the positive aspects of adoption.

(5) The Department of Health and local health departments shall provide ultrasounds in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 76-7-305(2)(b), at no expense to the pregnant woman.

(6) The Department of Health shall compile and report the following information annually, preserving physician and patient anonymity:

(a) the total amount of informed consent material described in Subsection (1) that was distributed;

(b) the number of women who obtained abortions in this state without receiving those materials;

(c) the number of statements signed by attending physicians certifying to his opinion regarding adverse effects on the patient under Subsection (3); and

(d) any other information pertaining to protecting the informed consent of women seeking abortions.

(7) The Department of Health shall annually report to the Health and Human Services Interim Committee regarding the information described in Subsection (6), and provide a copy of the printed materials and the videotape produced in accordance with this section to that committee.

 Section 6. Section 76-7-315 is amended to read:

76-7-315. Exceptions to certain requirements in serious medical emergencies. When due to a serious medical emergency, time does not permit compliance with Section 76-7-302, 76-7-305, 76-7-305.5, or 76-7-310.5 the provisions of those sections do not apply.

Section 7. Section 78-14-5 is amended to read:

78-14-5. Failure to obtain informed consent -- Proof required of patient --

 Defenses -- Consent to health care.

(1) When a person submits to health care rendered by a health care provider, it shall be presumed that what the health care provider did was either expressly or impliedly authorized to be done. For a patient to recover damages from a health care provider in an action based upon the provider's failure to obtain informed consent, the patient must prove the following:

(a) that a provider-patient relationship existed between the patient and health care provider;

(b) the health care provider rendered health care to the patient;

(c) the patient suffered personal injuries arising out of the health care rendered;

(d) the health care rendered carried with it a substantial and significant risk of causing the patient serious harm;

(e) the patient was not informed of the substantial and significant risk;

(f) a reasonable, prudent person in the patient's position would not have consented to the health care rendered after having been fully informed as to all facts relevant to the decision to give consent. In determining what a reasonable, prudent person in the patient's position would do under the circumstances, the finder of fact shall use the viewpoint of the patient before health care was provided and before the occurrence of any personal injuries alleged to have arisen from said health care; and

(g) the unauthorized part of the health care rendered was the proximate cause of personal injuries suffered by the patient.

(2) It shall be a defense to any malpractice action against a health care provider based upon alleged failure to obtain informed consent if:

(a) the risk of the serious harm which the patient actually suffered was relatively minor;

(b) the risk of serious harm to the patient from the health care provider was commonly known to the public;

(c) the patient stated, prior to receiving the health care complained of, that he would accept the health care involved regardless of the risk; or that he did not want to be informed of the matters to which he would be entitled to be informed;

(d) the health care provider, after considering all of the attendant facts and circumstances, used reasonable discretion as to the manner and extent to which risks were disclosed, if the health care provider reasonably believed that additional disclosures could be expected to have a substantial and adverse effect on the patient's condition; or 

(e) the patient or his representative executed a written consent which sets forth the nature and purpose of the intended health care and which contains a declaration that the patient accepts the risk of substantial and serious harm, if any, in hopes of obtaining desired beneficial results of health care and which acknowledges that health care providers involved have explained his condition and the proposed health care in a satisfactory manner and that all questions asked about the health care and its attendant risks have been answered in a manner satisfactory to the patient or his representative; such written consent shall be a defense to an action against a health care provider based upon failure to obtain informed consent unless the patient proves that the person giving the consent lacked capacity to consent or shows by clear and convincing proof that the execution of the written consent was induced by the defendant's affirmative acts of fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent omission to state material facts.

(3) Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to prevent any person 18 years of age or over from refusing to consent to health care for his own person upon personal or religious grounds.

(4) Except as provided in Section 76-7-304.5, the following persons are
 authorized and empowered to consent to any health care not prohibited by law:

  •  (a) any parent, whether an adult or a minor, for the parent's minor child;
  •  (b) any married person, for a spouse;
  •  (c) any person temporarily standing in loco parentis, whether formally serving or not, for the minor under that person's care and any guardian for the guardian's ward;
  •  (d) any person 18 years of age or over for that person's parent who is unable by reason of age, physical or mental condition, to provide such consent;
  •  (e) any patient 18 years of age or over;
  •  (f) any female regardless of age or marital status, when given in connection with her pregnancy or childbirth;
  •  (g) in the absence of a parent, any adult for the adult's minor brother or sister; and
  •  (h) in the absence of a parent, any grandparent for the grandparent's minor grandchild.

(5) No person who in good faith consents or authorizes health care treatment or procedures for another as provided by this act shall be subject to civil liability.

 

HB 90 - Second Trimester Abortions

In 2009, Governor Huntsman signed House Bill 90. This legislation made it illegal to perform an abortion in the second trimester and increased the penalty for doing so to a second degree felony from a third degree felony.

This bill:
removes an unconstitutional provision requiring that all abortions performed 90 days or more after the commencement of a pregnancy be performed in a hospital;
 . defines the term "viable";
 . provides that an abortion may only be performed in this state if:
 . the unborn child is not viable; or
 . the unborn child is viable, if the abortion is necessary to avert the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed, the abortion is necessary to avert aserious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman, two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and uniformly lethal, or the woman is pregnant as a result of rape, rape of a child, or incest; provides that a violation of the provisions in the preceding paragraph constitute the second degree felony offense of "killing an unborn child"; provides that a woman who seeks to have, or obtains, an abortion for herself is not  criminally liable; makes technical changes; and enacts an uncodified severability clause.
Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
None
Other Special Clauses:
This bill provides a severability clause.
Utah Code Sections Affected:
AMENDS: 76-7-302, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2004, Chapter 90 76-7-314, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2004, Chapter 272
ENACTS: 76-7-314.5, Utah Code Annotated 1953
REPEALS: 76-7-317.2, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 250

Uncodified Material Affected: ENACTS UNCODIFIED MATERIAL
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: Section 1. Section 76-7-302 is amended to read:
 76-7-302. Circumstances under which abortion authorized.

(1) As used in this section, "viable" means that the unborn child has reached a stage of fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
(2) An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician licensed to practice medicine under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act or an osteopathic physician licensed to practice medicine under Title 58, Chapter 68, Utah Osteopathic Medical Practice Act

(3) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following circumstances:
(a) the unborn child is not viable; or
(b) the unborn child is viable, if:
(i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
(A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed;
(ii) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the patient's medical record that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable and uniformly lethal; or
(iii) (A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
(I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402 ;
(II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1 ; or
(III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406 (10) or Section 76-7-102 ; and
(B) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
(I) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (3)(b)(iii)(A) has been reported to law enforcement; and
(II) complies with the requirements of Section 62A-4a-403 .
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a woman who seeks to have, or obtains, an abortion for herself is not criminally liable.

Section 2. Section 76-7-314 is amended to read: 76-7-314. Violations of abortion laws -- Classifications.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman who seeks to haveor obtains an abortion for herself is not criminally liable.
(2) A woman upon whom a partial birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under Section 76-7-326 or 76-7-329 for a conspiracy to violate Section 76-7-326 or 76-7-329 .
(3) A willful violation of Section 76-7-307 , 76-7-308 , 76-7-310 , 76-7-310.5, 76-7-311 , or 76-7-312 is a felony of the third degree.
(4) A violation of Section 76-7-326 or 76-7-329 is a felony of the third degree.
(5) A violation of Section 76-7-314.5 is a felony of the second degree.
(6) A violation of any other provision of this part is a class A misdemeanor.

Section 3. Section 76-7-314.5 is enacted to read:
76-7-314.5. Killing an unborn child.
(1) A person is guilty of killing an unborn child if the person causes the death of an unborn child by performing an abortion of the unborn child in violation of the provisions of Subsection 76-7-302 (3).
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a woman who seeks to have, or obtains, an abortion for herself is not criminally liable.

Section 4. Repealer.
This bill repeals:  Section 76-7-317.2, Finding of unconstitutionality -- Revival of old law.

Section 5. Severability clause.
If any one or more provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this bill or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is found to be unconstitutional, the same is hereby declared to be severable and the balance of this bill shall remain effective notwithstanding such unconstitutionality. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have passed this bill, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word be declared unconstitutional.

 

HB 222 - Unborn Child Pain

In 2009, Governor Huntsman signed into law HB 222. This legislation requires abortion practitioners to tell women about the pain their baby will feel during an abortion. 

LONG TITLE
General Description:
This bill amends provisions of the Utah Criminal Code relating to abortion.
Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
. requires that at least 24 hours before a physician performs an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age, the woman on whom the abortion is performed shall, except when a medical emergency exists and there is not adequate time to comply with the requirements of this bill, be informed:
. that, upon the woman's request, an anesthetic or analgesic will be administered to the unborn child, through the woman, to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child; and
. of any medical risks to the woman associated with the anesthetic or analgesic;
. provides that a person providing the information described in the preceding paragraph is not prohibited from informing the woman of the person's own opinion regarding the administration of an anesthetic or analgesic to alleviate fetal pain;
. requires the Department of Health to produce a brochure that:
. subject to certain exceptions, is to be provided to a woman seeking an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age; and
. includes information relating to the ability of an unborn child to experience pain during an abortion procedure and the methods of alleviating or eliminating that pain;
. provides that a physician who performs an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age shall administer an anesthetic or analgesic to the unborn child if the woman having the abortion consents to the administration of the anesthetic or analgesic, unless a medical emergency exists and there is not adequate time to comply with the requirements of this bill; and
. makes technical changes.

 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
 None
 Other Special Clauses:
 This bill coordinates with H.B. 90 by providing substantive and technical amendments. Utah Code Sections Affected:

AMENDS:
76-7-305, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 3
76-7-305.5, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2006, Chapters 116 and 207
76-7-315, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2006, Chapter 207

ENACTS: 76-7-308.5, Utah Code Annotated 1953

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
Section 1. Section 76-7-305 is amended to read: 76-7-305. Informed consent requirements for abortion -- 24-hour wait mandatory -- Emergency exceptions.
(1) No abortion may be performed unless a voluntary and informed written consent, consistent with Section 8.08 of the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics, Current Opinions, and the provisions of this section is first obtained by the attending physician from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed.
(2) Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if:
(a) at least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, a registered nurse, nurse practitioner, advanced practice registered nurse, certified nurse midwife, or physician's assistant, in a face-to-face consultation, orally informs the woman:
(i) consistent with Subsection (3)(a), of the nature of the proposed abortion procedure or treatment, specifically how that procedure will affect the fetus, and the risks and alternatives to an abortion procedure or treatment that any person would consider material to the decision of whether or not to undergo an abortion;
(ii) of the probable gestational age and a description of the development of the unborn child at the time the abortion would be performed;
(iii) of the medical risks associated with carrying her child to term; and
(iv) except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), if the abortion is to be performed on an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age:
(A) that, upon the woman's request, an anesthetic or analgesic will be administered to the unborn child, through the woman, to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child that may be caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed; and
(B) of any medical risks to the woman that are associated with administering the anesthetic or analgesic described in Subsection (2)(a)(iv)(A);
(b) at least 24 hours prior to the abortion the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, or, as specifically delegated by either of those physicians, a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, certified nurse-midwife, advanced practice registered nurse, clinical laboratory technologist, psychologist, marriage and family therapist, clinical social worker, or certified social worker has orally, in a face-to-face consultation, informed thepregnant woman that:
(i) the Department of Health, in accordance with Section 76-7-305.5 , publishes printed material and an informational video that:
(A) provides medically accurate information regarding all abortion procedures that may be used;
(B) describes the gestational stages of an unborn child; and
(C) includes information regarding public and private services and agencies available to assist her through pregnancy, at childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including private and agency adoption alternatives;
(ii) the printed material and a viewing of or a copy of the informational video shall be provided to her free of charge;
(iii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of that assistance iscontained in the printed materials and the informational video published by the Department of Health;
(iv) except as provided in Subsection (3)[(b)](c), the father of the unborn child is legally required to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, and that the Office of Recovery Services within the Department of Human Services will assist her in collecting child support; and
(v) she has the right to view an ultrasound of the unborn child, at no expense to her, upon her request;
(c) the information required to be provided to the pregnant woman under Subsection

(2)(a) is also provided by the physician who is to perform the abortion, in a face-to-face consultation, prior to performance of the abortion, unless the attending or referring physician is the individual who provides the information required under Subsection (2)(a);
(d) a copy of the printed materials published by the Department of Health has been provided to the pregnant woman;
(e) the informational video, published by the Department of Health, has been provided to the pregnant woman in accordance with Subsection (4); and
(f) the pregnant woman has certified in writing, prior to the abortion, that the information required to be provided under Subsections (2)(a) through (e) was provided, in accordance with the requirements of those subsections.
(3) (a) The alternatives required to be provided under Subsection (2)(a)(i) shall include:
(i) a description of adoption services, including private and agency adoption methods; and
(ii) a statement that it is legal for adoptive parents to financially assist in pregnancy and birth expenses.
(b) The information described in Subsection (2)(a)(iv) may be omitted from the information required to be provided to a pregnant woman under this section if:
(i) the abortion is performed for a reason described in Subsection 76-7-302 (2)(a) or
 (d); and
 (ii) due to a serious medical emergency, time does not permit compliance with the requirement to provide the information described in Subsection (2)(a)(iv).
(c) The information described in Subsection (2)(b)(iv) may be omitted from the information required to be provided to a pregnant woman under this section if the woman is pregnant as the result of rape.
 (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person described in Subsection (2)(a) from, when providing the information described in Subsection (2)(a)(iv), informing a woman of the person's own opinion regarding:
 (i) the capacity of an unborn child to experience pain;
 (ii) the advisability of administering an anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child; or
 (iii) any other matter related to fetal pain.
 (4) When the informational video described in Section 76-7-305.5 is provided to a pregnant woman, the person providing the information shall first request that the woman view the video at that time or at another specifically designated time and location. If the woman chooses not to do so, a copy of the video shall be provided to her.
(5) When a serious medical emergency compels the performance of an abortion, the physician shall inform the woman prior to the abortion, if possible, of the medical indications supporting the physician's judgment that an abortion is necessary.
(6) Any physician who violates the provisions of this section:
(a) is guilty of unprofessional conduct as defined in Section 58-67-102 or 58-68-102 ; and
(b) shall be subject to:
(i) suspension or revocation of the physician's license for the practice of medicine and surgery in accordance with Section 58-67-401  or  58-68-401; and
(ii) administrative penalties in accordance with Section 58-67-402 or 58-68-402 .
(7) A physician is not guilty of violating this section for failure to furnish any of the information described in Subsection (2), if:
(a) the physician can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician reasonably believed that furnishing the information would have resulted in aSeverely adverse effect on the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
(b) in the physician's professional judgment, the abortion was necessary to save the pregnant woman's life;
(c) the pregnancy was the result of rape or rape of a child, as defined in Sections 76-5-402 and 76-5-402.1 ;
(d) the pregnancy was the result of incest, as defined in Subsection 76-5-406 (10) and
 Section 76-7-102 ; or
(e) the pregnant woman was 14 years of age or younger.
 (8) A physician who complies with the provisions of this section and Section
 76-7-304.5 may not be held civilly liable to the physician's patient for failure to obtain
 informed consent under Section 78B-3-406 .
Section 2. Section 76-7-305.5 is amended to read:
 76-7-305.5. Requirements for printed materials and informational video --
 Annual report of Department of Health.
 (1) In order to insure that a woman's consent to an abortion is truly an informed
 consent, the Department of Health shall publish printed materials and produce an
 informational video in accordance with the requirements of this section. The department and
 each local health department shall make those materials and a viewing of the video available at
 no cost to any person. The printed material and the informational video shall be
 comprehensible and contain all of the following:
 (a) geographically indexed materials informing the woman of public and private
 services and agencies available to assist her, financially and otherwise, through pregnancy, at
 childbirth, and while the child is dependent, including services and supports available under
 Section 35A-3-308 . Those materials shall contain a description of available adoption services,
 including a comprehensive list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of public and
 private agencies and private attorneys whose practice includes adoption, and explanations of
 possible available financial aid during the adoption process. The information regarding
 adoption services shall include the fact that private adoption is legal, and that the law permits
 adoptive parents to pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. The printed
 information and video shall present adoption as a preferred and positive choice and alternative
 to abortion. The department may, at its option, include printed materials that describe the
 availability of a toll-free 24-hour telephone number that may be called in order to obtain,
 orally, the list and description of services, agencies, and adoption attorneys in the locality of
 the caller;
 (b) truthful and nonmisleading descriptions of the probable anatomical and
 physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from
 fertilization to full term, accompanied by pictures or video segments representing the
 development of an unborn child at those gestational increments. The descriptions shall
 include information about brain and heart function and the presence of external members and
 internal organs during the applicable stages of development. Any pictures used shall contain
 the dimensions of the fetus and shall be realistic and appropriate for that woman's stage of
pregnancy. The materials shall be designed to convey accurate scientific information about an
 unborn child at the various gestational ages, and to convey the state's preference for childbirth
 over abortion;
 (c) truthful, nonmisleading descriptions of abortion procedures used in current
 medical practice at the various stages of growth of the unborn child, the medical risks
 commonly associated with each procedure, including those related to subsequent childbearing,
 the consequences of each procedure to the fetus at various stages of fetal development, the
 possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion, and the medical risks associated with
 carrying a child to term;
 (d) any relevant information on the possibility of an unborn child's survival at the
two-week gestational increments described in Subsection (1)(b);
 (e) information on the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care,
 childbirth, and neonatal care;
 (f) a statement conveying that it is unlawful for any person to coerce a woman to
 undergo an abortion;
 (g) a statement conveying that any physician who performs an abortion without
 obtaining the woman's informed consent or without according her a private medical
 consultation in accordance with the requirements of this section, may be liable to her for
 damages in a civil action at law;
 (h) a statement conveying that the state prefers childbirth over abortion; and
 (i) information regarding the legal responsibility of the father to assist in child support,
 even in instances where he has agreed to pay for an abortion, including a description of the
 services available through the Office of Recovery Services, within the Department of Human
 Services, to establish and collect that support.
 (2) (a) The printed material described in Subsection (1) shall include a separate
 brochure that contains truthful, nonmisleading information regarding:
 (i) the ability of an unborn child to experience pain during an abortion procedure;
 (ii) the measures that may be taken, including the administration of an anesthetic or
 analgesic to an unborn child, to alleviate or eliminate pain to an unborn child during an
 abortion procedure;
 (iii) the effectiveness and advisability of taking the measures described in Subsection
 (2)(a)(ii); and
 (iv) potential medical risks to a pregnant woman that are associated with the
 administration of an anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child during an abortion procedure.
 (b) A person or facility is not required to provide the information described in
 Subsection (2)(a) to a patient or potential patient, if the abortion is to be performed:
 (i) on an unborn child who is less than 20 weeks gestational age at the time of the
 abortion; or
 (ii) on an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age at the time of the
 abortion, if:
 (A) the abortion is being performed for a reason described in Subsection
 76-7-302 (2)(a) or (d); and
 (B) due to a serious medical emergency, time does not permit compliance with the
 requirement to provide the information described in Subsection (2)(a).
 (3) (a) The materials described in Subsections (1) and (2) shall be
 produced and printed in a way that conveys the state's preference for childbirth over abortion.
 (b) The printed material described in Subsections (1) and (2) shall be
 printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly legible.
 (4) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), every facility in which
 abortions are performed shall immediately provide the printed informed consent materials and
 a viewing of or a copy of the informational video described in Subsections (1)
 and (2) to any patient or potential patient prior to the performance of an abortion, unless the
 patient's attending or referring physician certifies in writing that he reasonably believes that
 provision of the materials or video to that patient would result in a severely adverse effect on
 her physical or mental health.
 (5) The Department of Health shall produce a standardized videotape that may be
 used statewide, containing all of the information described in Subsection (1), in accordance
 with the requirements of Subsections (1) and (3). In
 preparing the video, the department may summarize and make reference to the printed
 comprehensive list of geographically indexed names and services described in Subsection
 (1)(a). The videotape shall, in addition to the information described in Subsection (1), show
 an ultrasound of the heart beat of an unborn child at three weeks gestational age, at six to eight
 weeks gestational age, and each month thereafter, until 14 weeks gestational age. That
 information shall be presented in a truthful, nonmisleading manner designed to convey
 accurate scientific information, the state's preference for childbirth over abortion, and the
 positive aspects of adoption.
(6) The Department of Health and local health departments shall provide
 ultrasounds in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 76-7-305 (2)(b), at no expense to
 the pregnant woman.
 (7) The Department of Health shall compile and report the following information
 annually, preserving physician and patient anonymity:
 (a) the total amount of informed consent material described in 
 Subsections (1) and (2) that was distributed;
 (b) the number of women who obtained abortions in this state without receiving those
 materials;
 (c) the number of statements signed by attending physicians certifying to  the
 physicians' opinion regarding adverse effects on the patient under Subsection [(3)] (4); and
 (d) any other information pertaining to protecting the informed consent of women
 seeking abortions.

Section 3. Section 76-7-308.5 is enacted to read: 76-7-308.5. Administration of anesthetic or analgesic to an unborn child. A physician who performs an abortion of an unborn child who is at least 20 weeks gestational age shall administer an anesthetic or analgesic to eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child that may be caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed, if the woman having the abortion consents to the administration of an anesthetic or analgesic to the unborn child, unless the physician is prevented from administering the anesthetic or analgesic by a medical emergency.

Section 4. Section 76-7-315 is amended to read:
76-7-315. Exceptions to certain requirements in serious medical emergencies.
When due to a serious medical emergency, time does not permit compliance with Section 76-7-302 , 76-7-305 , 76-7-305.5 , 76-7-308.5 , or 76-7-310.5 the provisions of those sections do not apply.

Section 5. Coordinating H.B. 222 with H.B. 90 -- Substantive and technical amendments.
If this H.B. 222 and H.B. 90, Abortion Law Amendments, both pass, it is the intent of the Legislature that the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel shall prepare the Utah Code database for publication by modifying:
(1) Subsection 76-7-305 (3)(b)(i) to read as follows:
"(i) the abortion is performed for a reason described in Subsection 76-7-302 (3)(b)(i); and"; and
(2) Subsection 76-7-305.5 (2)(b)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
"(A) the abortion is being performed for a reason described in Subsection 76-7-302 (3)(b)(i); and".

 

Faith and Freedom Speech

At the 2011 Faith and Freedom conference in Washington D.C. Governor Huntsman spoke at length about his pro-life stance and the laws passed while he was Governor of Utah.

Although you would not know it in this town, there is something more essential than politics, and that's life. Especially a child's life. I can't imagine how much poorer the world without Gracie and her younger sister Hasha who was adopted from India. Mary Kay and I give thanks to those two mothers, not just on mothers day, but every day of our lives. For valuing their daughter lives enough so that they could become our daughters.

As governor of Utah I supported and signed every pro-life bill that came to my desk. I signed the bill that made second trimester abortions illegal, and increased the penalty for doing so. I singed the bill to allow women to know about the pain that an abortion causes to an unborn child. I signed the bill requiring parental permission for an abortion. I signed a bill that would trigger a ban on abortions in Utah if Roe vs. Wade were overturned.

You see, I do not believe the Republican Party should focus only on our economic life to the neglect of our human life. That is a trade that we should not make.

 

Hugh Hewitt Show

In June of 2011, Governor Huntsman appeared on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. He was asked in sort of a lightning round scenario if he would support a right to life amendment and he said that he would.

Governor, let’s close with four quick issue sets to get you located on the political map. Do you support a right to life amendment?

I do support a right to life amendment 

 

RedState Interview

In December of 2011, Governor Huntsman was interviewed by RedState.com and discussed abortion.

Q. One of the things that people may not know about you is that you are actually a very strong pro-lifer, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Now you..

A. I have been pro-life my entire career – I have two little adopted girls. One from China, one from India, who remind me every day about the beauty of life. And, uh, these little girls come from a culture where, uh, they were both abandoned – one at birth and the other at two months of age, where their mothers could have chosen otherwise. But their mothers for whatever reason chose life. And I’ll never be able to thank the mothers; I’ll never meet them. Uh, but I think about them all the time and so does my wife. And they were a couple mothers, no doubt, in a hardship position and you know, poorest of poor, in these very [under]developed countries, um, and they chose life. And they gave us life. And we now live with the life that they left for this world and these two little girls are going to go on and change the world in their own way and that, for me, is once again an example of the power of life, and how central life is to our existence here. If you believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is the philosophy which I tend to filter everything through when I make a decision as Governor, when I served as Governor, it’s a very powerful thing in our lives.

As Governor I also signed legislation that drove home that point. Uh, including banning second-trimester abortions, uh, including legislation on suffering of the fetus. Uh, including developing a trigger mechanism if Roe v. Wade ever were to be overturned.

Q. What I’d like to do, if I can, is go through, I guess kind of like a lightning round of questions. I think they can fairly be answered “yes” or “no,” on where you stand on various life issues, just to kind of introduce people to where you stand on a number of things. For instance, as President, would you sign an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy?

A. Uh, I would go right to where Ronald Reagan was, where we would not fund abortions anywhere in this world.

Q. Okay. Uh, you of course support the Hyde Amendment, is that correct, in keeping with that?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Would you support, either by legislation or executive order, a policy stating that all hospitals receiving medical funds must allow medical personnel who object to abortion on conscience grounds to opt out of that procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you support efforts to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood?

A. I do, but I have to be consistent with legislation in my own state, where there was some health aspects non-abortion health related aspects of Planned Parenthood that I supported.

Q. But would you agree, I guess though, that money is the ultimate fungible asset in the world – I mean, if you’re giving money to Planned Parenthood for other things, can’t that same money that they would otherwise from their budget there be diverted to the provision of abortion?

A. I would, I would agree with that.

Q. So notwithstanding that… well, let me just put the question in a different way. Would you veto any Federal budget that contained funding for Planned Parenthood?

A. Uh, yes I would.

Q. Okay. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars, as far as the size of the budget and so on and so forth?

A. Say that one more time? You broke up a little.

Q. Sure, sure. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars – in other words, it didn’t contain any..

A. Okay, yes. That’s right.

Q. One of the things that has frustrated pro-lifers for a long time is that Democrat nominees for President have long been able to publicly promise that they will nominate any Supreme Court judge (sic) that would not uphold Roe v. Wade, whereas Republican nominees have I guess kind of spoken in terms of code, like, “I would nominate judges like Roberts, Scalia, or Alito,” or worse, “I would have no litmus test in terms of the judges I would support.” Can you say that you would only nominate Supreme Court judges – justices – who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

A. Uh, when I interviewed for judgeships when I was Governor I did not impose a litmus test.

Q. Okay. Would you continue that policy as President?

A. Uh, I would continue that. I would seek out pro-life candidates first and foremost, but I would not, you pretty much know who those people would be, but I would not expressly impose a litmus test.

No data available for this representative.