Cory Booker on Abortion Mayor of Newark; N.J. Senator

Claimed to support post-viability exceptions, but voted no

ANALYSIS: Booker was pressed for specifics during the campaign and said he accepted "post-viability exceptions." But then he co-sponsored a bill that banned post-viability exceptions. Booker might say, "Well, SOME post-viability exceptions are ok, but not THOSE post-viability exceptions." But THOSE post-viability exceptions are the currently controversial ones, which come up on pro-life bills for votes in the Senate.

Fix Hobby Lobby: it's not about religious freedom

The nation's highest court voted 5-4 on Monday that companies with religious objections can dodge the requirement to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under Obama's Affordable Care Act, saying it violates a federal law protecting religious freedom. The ruling favored art-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby, among about 50 companies to sue over the ObamaCare requirement.

Booker is running for re-election this year against Republican challenger Jeff Bell, who--like other GOP leaders--praised Monday's ruling.

Vigorously defend women's access to affordable birth control

• Working to have our nation better invest in prenatal and early childhood health initiatives;
• Helping our nation develop strategies for wellness and preventative health. This is truly the best way to reduce health care cost and elevate the quality of life;
• Vigorously defending women's access to health care, affordable birth control, and protecting every woman's right to make decisions about her reproductive health;

OpEd: In mainstream of NJ, supporting abortion rights

Lonegan was asked about his affiliation with the tea party, his support for the government shutdown and his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Booker's campaign is banking on the fact that Lonegan's views are far to the right of those of a majority of New Jersey residents, who support abortion and gay marriage and voted to return Pres. Obama to office.

No restrictions before viability; exceptions after viability

The American Commitment Action Fund, a conservative PAC behind the BookerFAIL website, funded a new ad that claims Booker condones abortion at any stage of pregnancy and without restrictions. "He supports late-term and partial-birth abortion and opposes safety regulations," the ad states.

We checked with the Booker campaign. "We can all agree that we want to prevent unintended pregnancies, and therefore the need for abortion," a spokesman said. "Mayor Booker supports Roe v Wade, which allows women the right to choose up to the point of viability."

As for late-term and partial-birth abortions? "Cory Booker does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions if exceptions are made for the health and the life of the mother," the spokesman said.

Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:

• a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
• a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
• a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
• a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
• a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
• a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

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.

Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
• These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
• The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
• It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions

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.

• Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety."
  Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
• Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe."
  Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
• Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified."
  Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
• Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane."
  Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.

Keep 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.