|
|
Bob Casey on AbortionDemocratic Challenger for PA Senate |
SANTORUM: No, I'm not. I agree that it is an abortifacient, and that it's dangerous to give a dose of hormones equivalent to one third of a whole series of birth control pills to someone without any kind of doctor supervision.
CASEY: Yes, I'm in favor. I think what emergency contraception is contraception.
Q: But you do believe life begins at conception?
CASEY: I do.
Q: If this was fertilized, would you call it abortion?
CASEY: The science is clear on this. It is contraception, and I support it. I think we've got to make it widely available, and I think that's one of the ways we reach common ground on the very tough issue of abortion: emergency contraception can reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. That's what we should emphasize.
SANTORUM: The science is clear. In fact, it is an abortifacient in certain circumstances.
A: I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research.
Q: How would you vote if the Castle bill came to you in the Senate? [The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, known as the Castle bill, would allow embryonic stem cell research on so-called "left over" embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics.]
A: I would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research. As a US Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo. There are many promising techniques under development that don't require destroying the embryo and there's good reason to hope that soon we'll be able to remove the politics from this issue. I also strongly support increased federal funding for research on stem cells derived from adult cells, bone marrow and placentas - areas where tremendous progress has already been made.
A: Support a) Life of the mother. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, a PA bill would contain exceptions for rape, for incest, and for the life of the mother. I would strongly support that bill because it would have the effect of reducing the number of abortions in PA.
A: Oppose .
Q: What is your position on public funding of abortion?
A: Oppose
A: Support
Q: What is your position on requiring employers or health insurance plans to cover contraceptives in their prescription drug plans?
A: Support
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.
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
