List of pro-abortion candidates for U.S. Senate in 2018 who support the Women’s Health Protection Act

There are currently at least 24 candidates for the U.S. Senate in the 2018 midterm elections who support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would mandate that states keep abortion-on-demand legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth in addition to prohibiting states from enacting various restrictions on abortion.

Here is the list of current U.S. Senators running for re-election in 2018 who would continue to support the Women’s Health Protection Act if re-elected:

  • Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
  • Brown, Sherrod [D-OH]
  • Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
  • Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
  • Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
  • Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
  • Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
  • Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
  • Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
  • King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
  • Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
  • McCaskill, Claire [D-MO]
  • Menendez, Robert [D-NJ]
  • Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]
  • Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
  • Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
  • Smith, Tina [D-MN]
  • Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
  • Tester, Jon [D-MT]
  • Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
  • Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]

Here is a list of current U.S. representatives running for the U.S. Senate in the 2018 midterm elections who would continue to support the Women’s Health Protection Act if elected as U.S. Senator:

  • O’Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]
  • Rosen, Jacky [D-NV-3]
  • Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ-9]

All of the U.S. Senate candidates listed above do support abortion-on-demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth through their support of the Women’s Health Protection Act. These U.S. Senate candidates, along with other Democrats in Congress, have misrepresented the true nature of the Women’s Health Protection Act before to the American people. While Act for Women and the Democrats in Congress claim that the Women’s Health Protection Act “puts a woman’s health, safety, and right to abortion care above politics”, the reality is that the Women’s Health Protection Act puts the business interests of abortion providers ahead of women’s health.

Advertisements

The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 is a bad law that should not be enacted

The so-called Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 is really about advancing the business interests of the abortion industry and imposing a mandate that abortion-on-demand be legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states. It is not truly about protecting the health of women as the title suggests since the law is only really about keeping abortion and medical training for abortion procedures legal and largely unregulated.

Most of the Democrats in Congress support the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017, and they have also misrepresented the true nature of the Women’s Health Protection Act to their constituents. The Women’s Health Protection Act would mandate that abortion-on-demand be legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states by preventing states from enacting (a) “A prohibition or ban on abortion prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition, ban, or restriction on a particular abortion procedure”, (b) “A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating physician, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant woman’s life or health”, and (c) “A restriction that limits a pregnant woman’s ability to obtain an immediate abortion when a health care professional believes, based on her or his good-faith medical judgment, that delay would pose a risk to the woman’s health”.

Since the continuation of a pregnancy always involves a risk to the health of the pregnant woman, the Women’s Health Protection Act would effectively require abortion-on-demand to remain legal during all 9 months of pregnancy in all 50 states if enacted. In addition, the Women’s Health Protection Act also includes a liberal construction clause that states that “In interpreting the provisions of this Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to effectuate the purposes of the Act”. The liberal construction clause of the Women’s Health Protection Act is further proof that this piece of legislation is intended to mandate that abortion-on-demand be legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth in the United States.

The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 also prohibits various restrictions on abortion procedures and abortion facilities because these restrictions hurt the bottom line of abortion providers, and the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 would also actually make abortion more dangerous for pregnant women by preventing states from imposing various restrictions on abortion procedures and abortion facilities. As such, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 actually puts the business interests of the abortion industry ahead of the health of pregnant women.

Abortion providers in the United States operate on a business model of maximum profitability, maximum efficiency, and abortion-on-demand at all costs, and as such oppose many of the restrictions on abortion. The abuse of discretion by physicians is also far more widespread in the abortion industry than in medical practices that do not perform abortions. The government is clearly justified in imposing restrictions on abortion that do not apply to other medical procedures not only because abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being but also because the business model of abortion providers is different from that of most of the healthcare providers that do not perform abortions.

The majority of Americans actually support restrictions on abortion that would be prohibited under the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2017 if this piece of legislation is enacted since according to the Gallup Poll, only 29% of Americans want abortion to be legal under any circumstance, and 53% of Americans want all or most abortions to be illegal. The majority of Americans also oppose the extreme position of unregulated abortion-on-demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth that is currently being pushed by most of the Democrats in Congress.

The Women’s Health Protection Act is a bad law to begin with since it would mandate unrestricted abortion-on-demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth in all 50 states. Additionally, the Democrats in Congress who support the Women’s Health Protection Act have attempted to hide their true agenda by misrepresenting the true nature of the WHPA to the public, by making the WHPA sound less extreme than would actually be the case if the WHPA is enacted, and by giving this proposed piece of legislation a deceptive title.