Tim Walz on Abortion Democrat

No registry of pregnancies; that's nobody else's business

JDV: Donald Trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it's diverse. And California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia. Georgia has a different viewpoint from Arizona. And the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy.

Has two children, both conceived by IVF

• Walz met his future wife, Gwen Whipple, a native Minnesotan, as they were both high school teachers in temporary classrooms. The first lady said she was irked by his loud voice disrupting her classroom.
• The two eventually moved to Mankato, Minnesota, where they both worked at Mankato West High School. "Gwen loved living in southern Minnesota. We jumped at the chance to move to Mankato and start our lives together."
• He has two children, Hope and Gus. Hope recently graduated from college in Montana, and Gus is in public high school in St. Paul.
• Both children were conceived through IVF and fertility treatments: "There's a reason we named [our daughter] Hope."

Minnesota will protect reproductive freedom including IVF

Codified abortion rights while surrounded by pro-life states

Minnesota, surrounded by anti-abortion states, is a refuge in the Upper Midwest for reproductive health care. Reproductive rights groups are planning a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

"This incredible progress starkly contrasts with what happened in surrounding states, where politicians banned abortions and gender-affirming care, attacked drag shows, and invested more tax dollars into deceptive anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers," read a statement by Minnesota Planned Parenthood.

Abortion is on the ballot with my anti-choice opponent

Walz stressed that governors can appoint Minnesota Supreme Court justices who interpret cases. "I just want to be absolutely clear, this is on the ballot," Walz said.

Maintain funding for Planned Parenthood

Jeff Johnson (R): Ban. Believes in the sanctity of human life from conception. Wants a "heartbeat bill," banning abortions at about 6 weeks of pregnancy.

Tim Walz (D): Legal. Believes in a woman's right to choose, & will continue this support as Governor.

Q: Let Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health care?

Johnson: Unknown.

Walz: Yes. Voted against defunding Planned Parenthood.

Abortions should always be legal

Indicate which principles you support regarding abortion.
• Abortions should always be legal.
• Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
• Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

Supports embryonic stem cell research

Indicate which principles you support regarding health care.
• Support stem cell research on existing lines of stem cells.
• Allow laboratories to create new lines of stem cells for additional research.

Rated 100% by Planned Parenthood, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Planned Parenthood provides reproductive services for women, including contraception, information on STDs, and abortion services. The organization receives federal funding, but not for abortion services. The organization scores legislators on their voting record on abortion rights.

Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.

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.

Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.

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.