|
Tina Smith on Abortion
|
|
|
Served as a Planned Parenthood executive
After 2 weeks as a U.S. senator, Tina Smith already has some vocal opponents as she begins her campaign for the November election. So far, state Rep. Karin Housley is the only confirmed GOP challenger for Smith's Senate seat. She issued a statement
saying that the new senator's career as a longtime Democratic operative "and role as a leader in pushing for abortions as a Planned Parenthood executive gives reason to be concerned as to whether she will stand up for everyday Minnesota values."
Source: Minn. Star-Tribune on 2017-18 Minnesota Special election
, Jan 20, 2018
Vice president of Planned Parenthood of MN/SD/ND
Smith didn't follow the typical path to the life of a politician. She grew up in New Mexico, where her parents were involved in state and local politics. Yet Smith decided to go into business; she attended Stanford University and went on to earn an
MBA from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. She landed in Minnesota after taking a marketing job at General Mills and eventually started her own marketing firm.In the early 1990s, she started volunteering in Minneapolis
DFL politics, cutting her teeth on local campaigns. She eventually became vice president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota before serving four years as
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's chief of staff, leaving that role to manage his 2010 gubernatorial campaign. After Rybak failed to win the DFL endorsement for governor that year, Smith took a brief sabbatical from politics.
Source: MinnPost.com on 2017-18 Minnesota Special Senate Election
, Feb 2, 2015
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Smith 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:
- 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.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-S1696 on Nov 13, 2013
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.
Smith co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448
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.
Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_S217 on Jan 21, 2015
CC:Publicly fund abortions.
Smith supports the CC survey question on funding abortion
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Public Funding of Abortions (Such as Govt. Health Benefits and Planned Parenthood)'
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1b on Jul 1, 2018
CC:No parental notification for abortions by minors.
Smith opposes the CC survey question on parental notification
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Parental Notification for Abortions by Minors '
Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."
Source: Christian Coalition Surve 18CC-1c on Jul 1, 2018
Born-Alive Survivors bill tries to illegalize abortion.
Smith voted NAY Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
S.311/H.R.962: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: Congress finds the following:
- If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
- (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
- In the case of an attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born
alive at the same gestational age.
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: Congressional vote 19-S0311 on Feb 5, 2019
|
|
|
Other candidates on Abortion: |
Tina Smith on other issues: |
MN Gubernatorial:
Amy Klobuchar
Chris Coleman
Erin Murphy
Jeff Johnson
Lori Swanson
Mark Dayton
Matt Dean
Rebecca Otto
Tim Pawlenty
Tim Walz
Tina Liebling
MN Senatorial:
Amy Klobuchar
Jason Lewis
Jim Newberger
Karin Housley
Paula Overby
Steve Carlson
MN politicians
MN Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
 Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
vs.Blatchford(D)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrington(L)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Mahony(D)
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)
vs.Witzke(R)
vs.DeMartino(R)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Warnock(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Tarver(D)
vs.Carter(D)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Grayson(R)
vs.Stovall(I)
vs.Buckley(L)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Hazel(L)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Greenfield(D)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Franken(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Jordan(D)
vs.Harris(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.Marshall(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(D)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.O`Connor(R)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
vs.Squier(G)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
vs.Carlson(D)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Geise(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Messner(R)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(R)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Mehta(R)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Ronchetti(R)
vs.Walsh(L)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Broyles(D)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(R)
vs.Romero(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrison(D)
vs.Tinubu(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Ahlers(D)
vs.Borglum(R)
TN:
Alexander(R,retiring)
vs.Hagerty(R)
vs.Bradshaw(D)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Crim(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,retiring)
vs.Lummis(R)
vs.Ben-David(D)
vs.Ludwig(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
|
|
|
Page last updated: Dec 06, 2020