Jeff Bingaman on Abortion Democratic Sr Senator (NM)

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

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.

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

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

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

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)

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

• Increase funding and access to family planning services
• Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
• Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

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

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.

Voted NO on banning human cloning.

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a 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.

Expand embryonic stem cell research.

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:

• While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
• All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
• It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
• Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives 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

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

   Bingaman scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues

   OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

   • 0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
   • 16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
   • 85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
   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

   Protect the reproductive rights of women.

   Bingaman 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.

     Bingaman 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.

     Bingaman 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

     Click here for definitions & background information on Abortion. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jeff Bingaman. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jeff Bingaman. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Jeff Bingaman. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Jeff Bingaman. Click here for MyOcracy quiz answers by Jeff Bingaman. Click here for a summary of Jeff Bingaman's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other NM politicians. Click here for issue statements from NM archives.
     Other candidates on Abortion:		Jeff Bingaman on other issues:
     NM Gubernatorial: Gary Johnson Gary King John Sanchez Susana Martinez NM Senatorial: Allen Weh David Clements John Sanchez Martin Heinrich Tom Udall NM politicians NM Archives Retiring in 2014 election: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) NE:Johanns(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Retired as of Jan. 2013: AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	Senate Retirements 2014: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) NE:Johanns(R) OK:Coburn(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Senate races Nov. 2014: AK: Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R) vs.Sullivan(R) AL: Sessions(R,unopposed) AR: Pryor(D) vs.Cotton(R) CO: Udall(D) vs.Gardner(R) vs.Baumgardner(R) vs.Buck(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Stephens(R) DE: Coons(D) vs.O`Donnell(R) GA: Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Kingston(R) vs.Gingrey(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R) HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Cavasso(R) IA: Braley(D) vs.Ernst(R) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Clovis(R) ID: Risch(R) vs.Mitchell(D) IL: Durbin(D) vs.Oberweis(R) vs.Hansen(L) vs.Truax(R) KS: Roberts(R) vs.Tiahrt(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Taylor(D) vs.Orman(I) KY: McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D) LA: Landrieu(D) vs.Cassidy(R) vs.Maness(R) MA: Markey(D) vs.Herr(R) vs.Skarin(I) vs.Gomez(R) ME: Collins(R) vs.D`Amboise(R) vs.Bellows(D)	MI: Land(R) vs.Peters(D) vs.Wiedenhoeft(R) MN: Franken(D) vs.McFadden(R) vs.Abeler(R) vs.Ortman(R) MS: Cochran(R) vs.Childers(D) vs.McDaniel(R) MT: Walsh(D) vs.Daines(R) vs.Edmunds(R) vs.Bohlinger(D) NC: Hagan(D) vs.Tillis(R) NE: Sasse(R) vs.Domina(D) vs.Haugh(L) vs.Osborn(R) NH: Shaheen(D) vs.Brown(R) vs.Smith(R) vs.Rubens(R) vs.Testerman(R) vs.Martin(R) NJ: Booker(D) vs.Bell(R) vs.Sabrin(R) NM: Udall(D) vs.Weh(R) vs.Clements(R) OK-2: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Shannon(R) OK-6: Inhofe(R) vs.Silverstein(D) OR: Merkley(D) vs.Wehby(R) vs.Conger(R) RI: Reed(D) vs.Zaccaria(R) SC-2: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D) vs.Wade(D) SC-6: Graham(R) vs.Hutto(D) vs.Ravenel(I) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R) vs.Bright(R) SD: Rounds(R) vs.Weiland(D) vs.Pressler(I) TN: Alexander(R) vs.Carr(R) vs.Adams(D) TX: Cornyn(R) vs.Alameel(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Stockman(R) VA: Warner(D) vs.Gillespie(R) vs.Sarvis(L) WV: Capito(R) vs.Tennant(D) vs.Raese(R) vs.McGeehan(R) WY: Enzi(R) vs.Cheney(R) vs.Hardy(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: Fax Number: 202-224-2852 Mailing Address: Senate Office SH-703, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-5521

     
     
     
     
     
     Page last updated: Aug 07, 2014