OnTheIssuesLogo

Gary Peters on Abortion

 

 


Voted NO 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

Let military perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.

Peters signed MARCH for Military Women Act

Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health for Military Women Act or the MARCH for Military Women Act - Amends the prohibition on using funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to perform abortions by adding an exception for cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. (Current law provides an exception only where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.) Repeals a statutory restriction on using a medical treatment facility or other facility of the DOD to perform an abortion.

[Explanatory note from campusprogress.org "Military Reproductive Rights Bill", 7/5/11]:

Currently, the health coverage U.S. servicewomen have doesn't cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. U.S. servicewomen are also not permitted to use their own money to pay for an abortion at a military hospital. Military women stationed abroad are most affected by this regulation, as they would be forced to seek abortion services at foreign hospitals, which may be unsafe, or request permission from a supervisor to leave the country, which forces them to divulge that they are seeking an abortion. Most other American women who receive health care from the government but are not in the service can receive abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to the save the life of the mother. The MARCH for Military Women Act would give servicewomen coverage for abortion in the case of rape or incest and allow them to use their own funds for abortion at a U.S. military facility. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood are among many organizations that support this legislation.

Source: HR2085&S1214 11-HR2085 on Jun 2, 2011

Endorsed by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Peters is endorsed by 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.

Source: NARAL website 12-NARAL on Jan 1, 2012

Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Peters co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act

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

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.

Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013

Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.

Peters co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act

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

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.

Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013

Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.

Peters co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448

Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:

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.

Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_S217 on Jan 21, 2015

Keep federal funding for family planning clinics.

Peters signed keeping 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.

Source: Letter to the Senate Majority Leader from 46 Senators 17LTR-TITX on Mar 1, 2017

Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.

Peters voted NAY Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

S.311/H.R.962: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Congress finds the following:

Opposing argument from Rewire.com, "Born Alive Propaganda," by Calla Hales, 4/12/2019: From restrictive bans at various points of pregnancy to a proposed death penalty for seeking care, both federal and state legislators are taking aim at abortion rights. The goal? To make abortion illegal, criminalizing patients and providers in the process. One kind of bill making a recent resurgence is the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." These bills aim to further the false narrative that abortions regularly occur immediately before or, according to the president, at the time of birth. Intentional action to end the life of an infant is already illegal. This is covered by federal and state infanticide laws. These bills do nothing but vilify physicians who provide reproductive health care.

Legislative outcome Referred to Committee in House; Senate motion to proceed rejected, 56-41-3 (60 required).

Source: Supreme Court case 19-S0311 argued on Feb 5, 2019

Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

Peters 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

Other candidates on Abortion: Gary Peters on other issues:
MI Gubernatorial:
Abdul El-Sayed
Bill Schuette
Brian Calley
Gretchen Whitmer
Jennifer Granholm
John Tatar
Justin Amash
Mark Schauer
Rick Snyder
MI Senatorial:
Bob Young
Debbie Stabenow
John James
Marcia Squier
Mike Bouchard

MI politicians
MI Archives
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Byrne(R) vs.Merrill(R)
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Mahony(D) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Harrington(L)
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D)
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Franken(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) vs.Marshall(R)
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D) vs.Perkins(D)

MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D)
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Rice(D)
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Carlson(D) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G)
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Mues(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Giese(L)
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D)
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Rich(R)
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Workman(D) vs.Broyles(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Romero(R) vs.Perkins(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Tinubu(D) vs.Harrison(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Borglum(R) vs.Ahlers(D)
TN: Alexander(R,incumbent) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Hagerty(R)
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D)
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R)
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D)
WY: Enzi(R,incumbent) vs.Ludwig(D) vs.Lummis(R)
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:
Email Contact Form
Mailing Address:
Longworth HOB 1130, Washington, DC 20515
Official Website
Search for...





Page last updated: Jul 29, 2020