OnTheIssuesLogo

Steve Pearce on Abortion

Republican Representative (NM-2)

 


100% pro-life; stand up for life

With the attacks on traditional values growing by the day, we must stand up for our families, our religions, and our conservative principles. Pearce has a clear record on social issues and that is why in the past he has been supported by the Family Research Council and the Campaign for Working Families in addition to earning a 100% pro-life rating for his voting record. In Washington, Steve Pearce will stand up for life, traditional marriage and religious freedom.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, peopleforpearce.com, "Agenda" , Nov 2, 2010

Voted YES 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

Voted NO 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?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Vote to pass a bill that 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 HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save motherís life.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Pearce scores 0% 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

Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance.

Pearce scores 100% 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

Opposes federal abortion funding.

Pearce opposes the CC survey question on funding abortion

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic:"Public funding of abortions, (such as govt. health benefits and Planned Parenthood)"

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1b on Aug 11, 2010

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.

Pearce signed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Source: H.R.3 &S.906 11-HR0003 on May 5, 2011

Sponsored prohibiting abortion information at school health centers.

Pearce co-sponsored PRO-LIFE Act

Congressional Summary:Protecting Life in Funding Education Act or the PRO-LIFE Act--to prohibit the provision of federal education funding to state or local educational agencies that make health services available to students through school-based health centers, unless those centers certify that they will not provide students with abortions, abortion-related materials or referrals, or directions to abortion services.

Proponent's argument for bill: (Sponsor Rep. Randy Neugebauer's House website)

School districts in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and New York are now partnering with Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider, to pro

Source: H.R.1122 13-H1122 on Mar 13, 2013

Life and human rights begin at fertilization or cloning.

Pearce co-sponsored Sanctity of Human Life Act

The Sanctity of Human Life Act declares that:

  1. the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right;
  2. each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
  3. Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives.
Source: H.R.23 13-HR0023 on Jan 3, 2013

No family planning assistance that includes abortion.

Pearce co-sponsored Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where:

  1. the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest; or
  2. a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.
Excludes hospitals from such requirement so long as the hospital does not provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion.
Source: HR.217/S.135 13-HR0217 on Jan 4, 2013

No taxpayer funding of abortions via ObamaCare.

Pearce voted YEA 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: Supreme Court case 15-H0007 argued on Jan 22, 2015

Ban abortion after 20 weeks, except for maternal life.

Pearce voted YEA 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: Supreme Court case 15-H0036 argued on May 13, 2015

Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment.

Pearce co-sponsored granting the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment

Bill would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. The Right to Life Act declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and defines "human being" to encompass all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning.

Source: Right to Life Act (H.R.618) 2007-HR618 on Jan 22, 2007

2016-17 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Abortion: Steve Pearce on other issues:
NM Gubernatorial:
Gary Johnson
Gary King
Jeff Apodaca
Joe Cervantes
John Sanchez
Michelle Lujan-Grisham
Susana Martinez
NM Senatorial:
Allen Weh
David Clements
John Sanchez
Tom Udall

Special elections in 2017 (Democrats):
CA-34:Becerra(D; appointed CA Atty General)
CA-34:Gomez(D; elected June 6)
GA-6:Ossoff(D; lost election June 20)

Newly-elected Democrats seated Jan.2017:
AZ-1:O`Halleran(D)
CA-17:Khanna(D)
CA-20:Panetta(D)
CA-24:Carbajal(D)
CA-44:Barragan(D)
CA-46:Correa(D)
DE-0:Rochester(D)
FL-5:Lawson(D)
FL-7:Murphy(D)
FL-9:Soto(D)
FL-10:Demings(D)
FL-13:Crist(D)
HI-1:Hanabusa(D)
IL-10:Schneider(D)
IL-8:Krishnamoorthi(D)
MD-4:Brown(D)
MD-8:Raskin(D)
NH-1:Shea-Porter(D)
NJ-5:Gottheimer(D)
NV-3:Rosen(D)
NV-4:Kihuen(D)
NY-3:Suozzi(D)
NY-13:Espaillat(D)
PA-2:Evans(D)
TX-15:Gonzalez(D)
VA-4:McEachin(D)
WA-7:Jayapal(D)
Special elections in 2017 (Republicans):
KS-4:Pompeo(R; appointed CIA Director)
KS-4:Estes(R; elected April 11)
GA-6:Price(R; appointed HHS Secretary)
GA-6:Handel(R; elected June 20)
MT-0:Zinke(R; appointed DOI Secretary)
MT-0:Gianforte(R; elected May 25)
SC-5:Mulvaney(R; appointed OMB Director)
SC-5:Norman(R; elected June 20)
UT-3:Chaffetz(R; resigned; election pending Nov. 7)

Newly-elected Republicans seated Jan.2017:
AZ-5:Biggs(R)
FL-1:Gaetz(R)
FL-2:Dunn(R)
FL-18:Mast(R)
FL-19:Rooney(R)
FL-4:Rutherford(R)
GA-3:Ferguson(R)
IN-3:Banks(R)
IN-9: