OnTheIssuesLogo

Ben Ray Lujan on Abortion

 

 


Roe v. Wade is law of the land; should not be overturned

A moderator pressed the candidates on whether they support overturning Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision that established abortion rights nationwide. Ronchetti said "it's a very difficult question to answer only because you don't know what the case will be." Luj n said the Roe v. Wade decision is "the law of the land and should not be overturned."
Source: Franklin IN Daily Journal on 2020 New Mexico Senate debate , Oct 6, 2020

Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

Reference: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; Bill H.3 ; vote number 11-HV292 on May 4, 2011

Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Lujan 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:

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.

Lujan co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448

Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

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.

Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_H448 on Jan 21, 2015

Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.

Lujan 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

Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.

Lujan voted NAY Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

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

Other candidates on Abortion: Ben Ray Lujan on other issues:
NM Gubernatorial:
Gary Johnson
Gary King
Jeff Apodaca
Joe Cervantes
John Sanchez
Michelle Lujan-Grisham
Steve Pearce
Susana Martinez
NM Senatorial:
Bob Walsh
Gary Johnson
Gavin Clarkson
Maggie Toulouse Oliver
Mark Ronchetti
Martin Heinrich
Mick Rich
Tom Udall

NM politicians
NM Archives
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R)
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D)
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D)
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Buckley(L)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D)
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)

MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D)
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D)
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L)
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D)
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R)
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R)
TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(R)
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D)
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R)
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D)
WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Contact info:
Email Contact Form
Fax Number:
202-226-1528
Mailing Address:
Cannon HOB 502, Washington, DC 20515
Official Website
Search for...





Page last updated: Oct 20, 2020