Democratic candidate for President; Texas Senator nominee
VA must cover full spectrum of women's reproductive care
His plan emphasizes care for female veterans, pledging to "cover the full spectrum of women's reproductive health care, and include the provision of contraception with no out-of-pocket costs, in vitro fertilization without regard to
marital status or sexual orientation, and abortions to the extent they are provided by other federal programs." VA hospitals would also be required to provide free child care.
Source: CNN coverage of 2020 Democratic primary
, Jun 24, 2019
Repeal Hyde Amendment; work to secure women's rights
Every single session in Congress I voted to repeal the Hyde Amendment. I co-sponsored legislation to do the same, and as president not only will I ensure that we nominate justices who believe that the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, we
will compliment that by statute with our partners in Congress to make sure that no state can deny any woman the ability to have access to the healthcare that she needs. I want to make sure that we stand with women in every single case.
Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview
, Jun 9, 2019
Repeal Hyde Amendment; will lead pro-choice administration
Every single session in the United States Congress I voted to repeal the Hyde Amendment. I co-sponsored legislation to do the same, and as president not only will I ensure that we nominate justices who believe that Roe v. Wade is the
law of the land, we will compliment that by statute with our partners in Congress to make sure that no state can deny any woman the ability to have access to the healthcare that she needs. We'll also roll back the gag rule.
Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview series
, Jun 9, 2019
Abortions up until third trimester are woman's choice
Last week here in Happy Valley, former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke did just that when he clarified his position on abortions up until the third trimester. "Absolutely," he said. "Listen,
I think those decisions are best left to a woman and her doctor. I know better than to assume anything about a woman's decision, an incredibly difficult decision, when it comes to her reproductive rights."
Source: Washington Examiner on 2020 Democratic primary
, Mar 29, 2019
Oppose limiting abortions to under 20 weeks of pregnancy
Social Issues: Abortion should be legal and with fewer restrictions.
An abortion-rights supporter, O'Rourke co-sponsored a bill that would have prohibited states from adding any limits to abortions before a fetus is considered viable,
and placed no limits on abortions after viability if a doctor concludes the life or health of the mother is at risk.
He has voted against efforts to limit abortions to 20 weeks of pregnancy or less.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
, Mar 14, 2019
Trust women to make their own decisions
Q: Abortion: Mostly ban or mostly legal?
Ted Cruz (R): Ban. No exceptions for rape or incest. "Horrible as that crime is, I don't believe it's the child's fault."
Beto O'Rourke (D): Legal. Ensure abortions are rare, but trust women to make their
own decisions without government interference.
Q: Employers can withhold contraceptive coverage if disagree?
Ted Cruz (R): Yes. Proposed bill to allow that.
Beto O'Rourke (D): No. Discriminates by ignoring contraception's role in women's health.
Q: Let Planned Parenthood get public funds for non-abortion care?
Ted Cruz (R): No.
Was willing to risk a government shutdown in in order to defund.
Beto O'Rourke (D): Yes. Provide important preventive services, esp. for low-income families.
O`Rourke opposes the PVS survey question on abortion
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Abortion: Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q1 on Aug 30, 2012
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
O`Rourke co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News):
This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.
O`Rourke co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448
Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:
Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions
Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014):
During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.
Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety." Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe." Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified." Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane." Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.
Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_H448 on Jan 21, 2015
Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.
O`Rourke voted NAY No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women's health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should
not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama's approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.
Thus both sides' fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Congressional vote 15-H0007 on Jan 22, 2015
Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman's right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman's health, no matter how severe the situation.
H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so "complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Congressional vote 15-H0036 on May 13, 2015
O`Rourke supports the CC survey question on funding abortion
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Public Funding of Abortions (Such as Govt. Health Benefits and Planned Parenthood)'
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1b on Jul 1, 2018