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.

Women would not lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is defunded

Although Cecile Richards had argued that women would lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood loses its taxpayer funding, women would certainly have access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Women have access to all of the non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood offers at thousands of federally qualified health centers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia, and pregnant women can obtain abortions at abortion providers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in 45 states and in the District of Columbia. In addition, other healthcare providers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood would fill in the void that might result if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Furthermore, the truth that women would not lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is very obvious to many Americans, including some who support abortion rights and including some of the supporters of Planned Parenthood.

Why would Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards falsely claim that women would lose access to “basic family planning [such as] mammograms” if Planned Parenthood is defunded? She would say this in order to prevent Planned Parenthood from losing its taxpayer funding and to increase the profits of Planned Parenthood, even though this lie is obvious to some of the Americans who support Planned Parenthood. In addition, Cecile Richards might also be saying this in order to persuade women of childbearing age to obtain these services at Planned Parenthood clinics instead of unaffiliated providers so that these women will turn to Planned Parenthood for abortions in the event that they become pregnant. Moreover, Planned Parenthood might be making this false claim in order to subsidize its abortion services.

Planned Parenthood should be defunded by the federal government, even if some individuals believe that they should still receive taxpayer funding, for the following reasons:

  • Women can obtain every service that Planned Parenthood offers at providers who are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in 45 states and in the District of Columbia.
  • Women can obtain all of the non-abortion services at unaffiliated providers in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.
  • Planned Parenthood has already fraudulently received government funding that it was not legally entitled to receive from state and federal governments.
  • Planned Parenthood clinics have billed Medicaid for non-abortion services that were rendered to women who have undergone abortions at Planned Parenthood.
  • Planned Parenthood will steer pregnant women who obtain non-abortion medical services at Planned Parenthood clinics towards having an abortion because abortion is their primary source of profit and revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood contributes millions of dollars to the political campaigns of pro-abortion politicians in order to protect its taxpayer funding and its abortion business, whereas most of the other providers that provide the same non-abortion healthcare services do not contribute the large sums of money that Planned Parenthood does to political campaigns.
  • Unlike most other providers that provide the same services as Planned Parenthood, approximately $400 million of private donations are donated to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates every year.
  • Even though Planned Parenthood is primarily in the business of performing abortions and its primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood also misrepresents itself as a comprehensive women’s health provider.
  • Planned Parenthood has been involved in the harvesting of body parts obtained from babies that have been aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics, and Planned Parenthood has illegally profited from the sale of fetal body parts to researchers.
  • An increase in the amount of taxpayer funding that Planned Parenthood receives does lead to an increase in the number of abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.
  • Defunding Planned Parenthood will reduce the number of abortions that are performed at Planned Parenthood clinics.
  • If Planned Parenthood is defunded and if the taxpayer funds go to other federally qualified health centers that do not perform abortions, more women would be able the same non-abortion medical services that are currently provided by Planned Parenthood.
  • Some of the federally qualified health centers provide essential medical services that are not even offered at any of the Planned Parenthood clinics, including but not limited to mammograms, prenatal care, and endometriosis treatment. A more complete list of services that Planned Parenthood does not provide can be found here.