OnTheIssuesLogo

Maria Cantwell on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator (WA)

 


Roe v. Wade is US law and WA law, so uphold it

Q: What’s your position on abortion?

GUTHRIE: You have the right to medical freedom. You get to choose the procedures that you undergo, not politicians. Your individual right translates into a woman’s right for reproductive freedom. I’m pro-choice.

McGAVICK: Partial birth abortion should not be used as a loophole; and taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion. With underage pregnancies, parents have a right to be involved with that decision. Within these boundaries, I believe choice should exist.

CANTWELL: I support Roe v. Wade. It has been the law of the land for 30 years. More importantly, it has been voted on, by initiative, ad adopted by the people of this state. That’s why I work to uphold that women have full access to reproductive healthcare choices that is both the national law and the law of this state. I think it’s important to support, with federal dollars, those programs that give full access, and don’t discriminate against women who can’t afford that access.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 on 2006 election , Oct 17, 2006

Votes against Ashcroft, citing reproductive rights

Senator Ashcroft has taken positions on reproductive rights -- an issue of critical importance to women in this country -- that are clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. His record of pushing legislation limiting the right to a legal abortion and contraception, as Missouri Attorney General, Governor, and Senator, have caused great anxiety for many in my state. As Missouri Attorney General, he took up numerous cases in his crusade to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.

As my colleague Sen. Leahy stated previously, “there is no appointed position within the Federal Government that can affect more lives in more ways than the attorney general--we all look to the attorney general to ensure even-handed law enforcement; equal justice for all; (and) protection of our basic constitutional rights.” The bottom line is that: I am not convinced that Senator Ashcroft will enforce the letter and spirit of the law in the area of women’s reproductive rights.

Source: Press Release, “Ashcroft” , Jan 30, 2001

100% pro choice

Q: How does your position on a woman’s right to choose affect your support of childhood issues?

A: I’m very supportive of programs like planned parenthood and dollars that are used to educate women about their choices. And that means the whole spectrum of choices. I am pro-choice, and 100% pro-choice on my voting record, unlike Senator Gorton. But I also believe besides a woman’s right to choose, she should have information. She should know what her options are. I think this is where senator Gorton and I differ, and on issues of public financing, its not just that there’s - there are bills where women have private financing in public ways. So to help women make their choices, whether they want to save the child, for adoption, or whether they want to choose. And Senator Gorton doesn’t support those options, and I’m very concerned that as someone who would be there in the US Senate that has voted against codifying Roe v. Wade, that we wouldn’t have a Senator that would make the right choices.

Source: Spokane Rotary Debate , Oct 26, 2000

Strongly supports “Abortion is a woman’s right”

Personal decisions such as this should not be made for us by the government. All women deserve access to safe and legal abortion services. - Cantwell

While serving in Congress, Cantwell had the opportunity to vote 32 times on the abortion issue, and on every vote, she took a strong pro-choice position. This included votes supporting: Federal and private insurance coverage of abortion, medical privacy and availability of reproductive services for minors, access for military personnel and prisoners.

Source: www.cantwell2000.com , Sep 21, 2000

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.

Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None spoke against the amendment.

Reference: Wicker Amdt.; Bill S.Amdt.607 to H.R.1105 ; vote number 2009-S081 on Mar 5, 2009

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)

Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.

Letter of Support from Family Research Council:

Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.

Reference: Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations; Bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 ; vote number 2007-379 on Oct 18, 2007

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
  1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
  2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
  3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
  4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003

Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.

Cantwell is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:

EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”

Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Cantwell scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Cantwell signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President

Dear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.

We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.

However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.

Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:

We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Cantwell introduced expanding contraceptive services for low-income women

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:

  1. prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
  2. include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

    Congress makes the following findings:
  1. Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
  2. Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
  3. Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
  4. Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
  5. Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
  6. By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.

    Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

    Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.

    Cantwell introduced for emergency contraception for rape victims

    OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:

    1. accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
    2. emergency contraception on her request; and
    3. does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.

    SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.

    Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.

    By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.

    The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.

    Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006

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

    Cantwell scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues

    OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

    About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):

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

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

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

    Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

    Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

    Cantwell 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-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013

    Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

    Cantwell 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_S217 on Jan 21, 2015

    Keep federal funding for family planning clinics.

    Cantwell signed keeping federal funding for family planning clinics

    Excerpts from Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators: The recent vote in the House to overturn rules protecting Title X health centers would deny women access to care. In 2015, Title X provided basic primary and preventive health care services such as pap tests, breast exams, and HIV testing to more than four million low-income women and men at over 4,000 health centers. In large part due to this work, the US unintended pregnancy rate is at a 30-year low, and rates of teenage pregnancy are the lowest in our nation's history. The success of the program is dependent on funding. Family planning services, like those provided at Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers, should be available to all women, no matter where they live or how much money they make.

    Opposing argument: (Heritage Foundation, "Disentangling the Data"): Planned Parenthood received approximately $60 million of taxpayer money under Title X, and $390 million through Medicaid. To ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize America's number one abortion provider, Congress should make Planned Parenthood affiliates ineligible to receive either Medicaid reimbursements or Title X grants if they continue to perform abortions. Taxpayer money from these programs should instead be redirected to the more than 9,000 federally qualified health center sites that provide comprehensive primary health care for those in need without entanglement in abortion.

    Supporting argument: (ACLU, "Urging Title X"): Title X services help women & men to plan the number and timing of their pregnancies, thereby helping to prevent approximately one million unintended pregnancies, nearly half of which would end in abortion. However, current funding is inadequate. Had Title X funding kept up with inflation it would now be funded at nearly $700 million. We ask that Title X be funded at $375 million, which is $92 million above its current funding level.

    Source: Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators 17LTR-TITX on Mar 1, 2017

    CC:Publicly fund abortions.

    Cantwell 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

    CC:No parental notification for abortions by minors.

    Cantwell opposes the CC survey question on parental notification

    The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Parental Notification for Abortions by Minors ' 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-1c on Jul 1, 2018

    Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.

    Cantwell voted NAY Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

    S.311/H.R.962: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Congress finds the following:

    Opposing argument from Rewire.com, "Born Alive Propaganda," by Calla Hales, 4/12/2019: From restrictive bans at various points of pregnancy to a proposed death penalty for seeking care, both federal and state legislators are taking aim at abortion rights. The goal? To make abortion illegal, criminalizing patients and providers in the process. One kind of bill making a recent resurgence is the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." These bills aim to further the false narrative that abortions regularly occur immediately before or, according to the president, at the time of birth. Intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. This is covered by federal and state infanticide laws. These bills do nothing but vilify physicians who provide reproductive health care.

    Legislative outcome Referred to Committee in House; Senate motion to proceed rejected, 56-41-3 (60 required).

    Source: Supreme Court case 19-S0311 argued on Feb 5, 2019

    Protect the reproductive rights of women.

    Cantwell co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women

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

      Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

      Cantwell co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception

      A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:

      1. Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
      2. Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
      3. Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
      4. In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
      5. The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
      6. Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
      7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
      8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
      9. A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
      Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007

      Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

      Cantwell signed Prevention First Act

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

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

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

      Other candidates on Abortion: Maria Cantwell on other issues:
      WA Gubernatorial:
      Bill Bryant
      Jay Inslee
      Phil Fortunato
      WA Senatorial:
      Chris Vance
      Dave Strider
      Jennifer Ferguson
      Mike Luke
      Patty Murray
      Susan Hutchison

      WA politicians
      WA Archives
      Senate races 2019-20:
      AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I)
      AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Byrne(R) vs.Merrill(R)
      AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Mahony(D) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Harrington(L)
      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)
      GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D)
      GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D)
      IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D)
      ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D)
      IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D)
      KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) vs.Marshall(R)
      KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
      LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D)

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

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

      Contact info:
      Fax Number:
      202-228-0514
      Mailing Address:
      Senate Office SD-511, Washington, DC 20510
      Phone number:
      (202) 224-3441
      Search for...





      Page last updated: Jul 15, 2020