Abortion stances at odds, mostly
For Senate rivals, position on issue is complicated
By Stephanie Ebbert
Boston Globe Staff / January 4, 2010
Brown’s record is far more nuanced. He has angered abortion-rights groups with acts like his cosponsorship of the Women’s Right to Know Act, which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and to review pictures and information detailing the developmental progress of her fetus.
Indeed, Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, picked up the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion.
“We’re behind him,’’ said John Rowe, chairman of the group’s federal political action committee. “The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference.’’
The group did not support Brown in 2004, when, during his campaign for state Senate, he noted his support for Roe v. Wade. But Rowe said he believes that Brown’s position has evolved. “We always welcome people coming over to our side,’’ he said.
Brown declined requests for an interview to discuss his views on abortion, instead issuing a statement through a spokesman.
“While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America,’’ he said.
“I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial-birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.’’
In addition to his sponsorship of the Women’s Right to Know bill, Brown sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception.
“Through our conversations, I’ve heard, ‘what if somebody has a sincerely held religious conviction about dispensing the emergency contraception medication? What about their rights? How do we address those?’ ’’ Brown said on the Senate floor, according to a State House News Service transcript.
Brown added that a rape victim would be referred to another facility at no additional cost. “It’s not about the victim. The victim is very important in this situation,’’ he said.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
ANOTHER ANGLE ON BROWN
I just saw SEIU's TV ad against Brown and in the debate on Monday, he apparently was trying to hide his oppostion to abortion. Here's more on his position:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment