¶ Abortion
Highlights:
- Ted Cruz supported overturning Roe v. Wade and praised the Supreme Court's decision to do so in 2022. Before it was lost to history, Cruz called the anniversary of Roe a “dark” day.
- Ted Cruz backed federal abortion bans and introduced them in Congress. Cruz also supported provisions of federal abortion bans that would included penalties for doctors.
- Ted Cruz opposed language that would have provided for exceptions to abortion bans for victims of rape or incest. Cruz also led the fight to keep these exceptions out of the Republican Party's platform.
- Ted Cruz opposed efforts to protect and expand access to contraception.
- Ted Cruz claimed Democrats created a “made up threat” to contraception and at the same time, refused to say whether he would support IUDs as a form of birth control. Cruz opposed the Affordable Care Act's attempt to protect contraception access, calling it a “faith fine” and and “war on the Catholic Church." Cruz supported multiple legal challenges to contraception access by Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
- Ted Cruz waged a rhetorical war on Planned Parenthood and supported “defunding” the organization.
- Ted Cruz opposed the Women's Health Protection Act.
- Ted Cruz opposed and hassled universities engaging in fetal tissue research.
- Ted Cruz opposed “buffer zones” outside of health centers providing abortion to protect patients.
- Ted Cruz supported additional restrictions on abortion in D.C.
- Ted Cruz supported restrictions on abortion facilities, including Texas' HB2 law, which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
- Ted Cruz embraced an extremist who endorsed him in 2016 who had praised the execution of abortion providers.
- Ted Cruz backed “personhood” language.
- Ted Cruz supported legislation blocking minors from obtaining abortion care without permission from their parents.
- Ted Cruz fought against abortion coverage in veterans' health care plans.
¶ Cruz Long Supported Overturning Roe v. Wade
¶ Cruz Supported Dobbs Decision, Which Overruled Roe
¶ Cruz Praised Dobbs Decision After It Was Properly Released
Cruz On Dobbs Decision: “Nothing Short Of A Massive Victory For Life, And It Will Save The Lives Of Millions Of Innocent Babies.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case: ‘The Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case, reversing Roe v. Wade, is nothing short of a massive victory for life, and it will save the lives of millions of innocent babies. The decision reverses one of the most egregious departures from the Constitution and legal precedent the United States has ever seen, and one that has resulted in the deaths of 63 million American children.[‘]” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/24/22]
- Dobbs Overturned The Constitutional Right To Abortion In Roe v. Wade. According to CNBC, “The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973. […] The case that triggered Roe’s demise, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is related to a Mississippi law that banned nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.” [CNBC, 6/24/22]
Cruz Celebrated The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade In Dobbs. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case: […] ‘Roe was wrong the day it was decided, and it has been wrong every day since then. If you search for the word ‘abortion’ in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you won’t find it. The Court at the time acknowledged that, and yet Roe created a brand new constitutional ‘right’ out of whole cloth.[‘]” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/24/22]
[Video] Cruz: Roe Being Overturned Was “Culmination Of 49 Years Of Fervent Prayer, Of Marching In The March For Life, And Of Organizing” Around Republican Presidential Campaigns. According to Cruz’s personal Twitter, “Let's pause and reflect on what happened: Roe being overturned was the culmination of 49 years of fervent prayer, of marching in the March for Life, and of organizing around the campaigns of Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Donald Trump.” [Twitter, @TedCruz, 6/26/22]
Days After The Decision Was Released, Cruz Joined A Resolution Celebrating The Dobbs Decision. According to Fox News, “A group of Republican senators are introducing a resolution in celebration of the pro-life movement's ‘historic victory’ at the Supreme Court last week, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that overturned landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. […] The resolution, introduced by the GOP senators Tuesday, praises the work of the pro-life movement over the last 50 years to ‘stand up’ for the rights of the unborn and ensure the dignity of every person is protected under the laws of the United States. […] The senators joining Blackburn as cosponsors include […] Ted Cruz of Texas[.]” [Fox News, 6/28/22]
¶ Cruz Praised Leaked Draft Of Dobbs
Cruz On Leaked SCOTUS Draft Overturning Roe: “If This Report Is True, This Is Nothing Short Of A Massive Victory For Life.” According to Cruz's official Twitter, "If this report is true, this is nothing short of a massive victory for life and will save the lives of millions of innocent babies." [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 5/2/22]
Cruz Said He Hoped The Justices Will "Fulfill Their Constitutional Responsibility And Not Be Influenced By Political Pressure. According to Sen. Cruz writing for Fox News, "At the end of the day, the leaked document is still a draft, and the justices can change their votes up until the moment of the decision. I very much hope the justices will fulfill their constitutional responsibility and not be influenced by political pressure and partisan thuggery.” [Fox News, Ted Cruz, 5/5/22]
Cruz: The Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe “Would Be The Right Constitutional Outcome.” According to Sen. Cruz writing for Fox News, “I remain hopeful the court overturns Roe v. Wade. Doing so would be the right constitutional outcome and would save the lives of millions of innocent babies." [Fox News, Ted Cruz, 5/5/22]
¶ Cruz Had Called For Overturning Roe During Oral Arguments For Dobbs
December 2021: Cruz Was Hopeful Court Would Overturn Roe v. Wade, “The Right Thing To Do,” “What I’ve Urged The Court To Do.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “On the Mississippi abortion law before the Supreme Court, Sen. Cruz said: ‘Unfortunately, the left when it comes to abortion has gotten more and more radical. […] ‘Now, I am hopeful and I think there's some reason to be optimistic that the result of today's [yesterday's] argument will be the Court finally admitting that was a mistake, overruling Roe, which is the right thing to do, it's what I've urged the Court to do, and returning that decision to the state legislatures.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 12/2/21]
[Video] Cruz Argued Roe Was Decided By “Seven Unelected Judges,” Led To “5 Decades Of Deep Political Division.” According to Cruz’s official Twitter, “When Roe was decided in 1973 – seven unelected judges decided that they knew better than the American public. The result has been 5 decades of deep political division, because the democratic process has been prevented from operating.” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 7/12/22]
¶ Cruz Criticized Roe As Bad Law For Years Before Dobbs
¶ Cruz Said He Did Not Consider Roe “Settled Law"
Cruz Said Roe v. Wade Was Not “Settled Law.” While appearing on the Kelly File, Cruz said, “KELLY: So is Roe v. Wade settled law in your view? CRUZ: No. And I think it was -- it was a classic example of activism. It was a -- KELLY: Even if that’s true, though, here we are some 40 years later. What would President Cruz do about it? CRUZ: Well, look, I think there’s a great deal, you can do one of the things you can do for example. And I intend to do is re-impose what are called the Mexico City rules that Ronald Reagan put in place that prohibit federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, funding abortions overseas, funding organizations --” [Kelly File, 4/4/16]
¶ Cruz Called Roe “Terrible Jurisprudence”
Cruz Praised The Senate For Confirming “Judges Who Recognize The Terrible Jurisprudence Behind Roe v. Wade.” According to Sen. Cruz writing for the Daily Signal, “From its first days in office, the Trump administration reinstated and expanded the Mexico City policy, which blocks federal funding for nongovernmental organizations that facilitate abortions. In the Senate, we’ve been able to confirm more and more of the administration’s constitutionalist judges who recognize the terrible jurisprudence behind Roe v. Wade. We passed a law allowing states to deny Title X funding to Planned Parenthood, and saw the federal government finalize religious exemptions to prevent the Little Sisters of the Poor and private employers from being required to provide abortifacient drugs.” [Daily Signal, Ted Cruz, 1/18/19]
¶ Cruz Compared Roe v. Wade To Dred Scott And Lochner v. New York
[Video] Cruz Compared Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott And Lochner v. New York. According to a statement by Sen. Cruz to the Senate Judiciary Committee On Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal Court Hearing. “We’ve seen the Court’s imperial tendencies previously in the infamous case of Dred Scott, a case that helped precipitate the Civil War. The court struck down a federal law that banned slavery in the territories. Why? Because the court declared that liberty includes the right to own slaves, a horrific, contorted position with no support whatsoever in the actual text of the United States Constitution. In Lochner v. New York an activist court struck down minimum wage laws, an action that from a policy perspective may well have been good policy and yet it was, once again, a right found nowhere in the text of the United States Constitution. In more recent cases – most notably Roe v. Wade – the court created another new right, the right to abortion that has resulted in tens of millions of unborn children losing their lives.” [Ted Cruz, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts Hearing, 7/22/15]
¶ Cruz Voiced Support For Overturning Roe v. Wade For Over A Decade
2012: Cruz Supported Overturning Roe v. Wade. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “Cruz speaks of our ‘stark choice’ and the belief that ‘government is not the answer’ but fosters ‘dependency, destroying individual liberty.’ He pledges to ‘restore our constitution’ and ‘return to the founding principles.’ Cruz sees the greatest steps forward over the last two years not in Republican gains against Democrats, but in Tea Party victories against established Republicans. He favors repealing Roe v. Wade; abolishing the federal Education, Energy and Commerce departments and the IRS; replacing Social Security with private accounts; and blocking nontraditional paths to citizenship.” [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 9/7/12]
¶ Cruz Marked The Anniversary Of Roe v. Wade As A “Dark Anniversary”
Cruz Called That Anniversary Of Roe v. Wade A “Dark Anniversary.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “Today marks the dark anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas law that prohibited abortion on demand. Since that 1973 ruling, more than 55 million lives have been lost to abortion. Defending life, at its core, includes protecting both the unborn child and his or her mother from an irreversible injustice. We cannot know how many inventors, musicians, scientists, athletes, physicians, and entrepreneurs were never allowed to breathe their first breath of life. We cannot know the medical cures, artistic masterpieces, thriving businesses, and life-transforming charities that never came into existence. Today we mourn those 55 million souls.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/22/13]
Cruz: Roe v. Wade “Marks A Shadow In Our Nation’s History.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “‘Forty-two years ago, Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas law and in one sweeping decision legalized abortion on demand across our nation. We are filled with grief for the nearly 57 million souls who will never have a chance to become the next teachers, artists, entrepreneurs, and heroes. ‘This anniversary marks a shadow in our nation’s history, but one that is not without hope. Since that decision, communities have come together to embrace life and help women in need, and states have enacted laws to protect the health of mothers and the unborn.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/22/15]
¶ Cruz Introduced And Voted For Federal Abortion Bans
¶ Cruz Repeatedly Introduced And Voted For Federal Legislation To Ban Abortion
¶ 2021: Cruz Introduced A Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban
Cruz Introduced A 20-Week Federal Abortion Ban. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) this week introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The legislation would provide common-sense protections for unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization, a point at which there is significant scientific evidence that abortion inflicts tremendous pain on the unborn. […] Upon introduction, Sen. Cruz said: ‘I am proud to join Senator Graham on this bill to ensure the protection of unborn children who, as the science shows us, experience severe pain in the process of abortion. Every human life is a gift from God, and America's founders knew that life comes first. Without life, there is no liberty; without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Our fight for life is far from over, and I will continue to stand up for the unborn who feel pain in the womb and who are denied a chance at life.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/28/21]
¶ 2015: Cruz Supported A Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban
2015: Cruz Effectively Voted For A Bill That Would Prohibit Abortions After 20-Weeks Gestation Except In Cases Of Rape Or Incest, But Would Erect New Barriers Such As Requiring Rape Victims To Document That They Received Prior Medical Treatment Or Counseling. In September 2015, Cruz effectively voted for a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and would impose criminal penalties on doctors that violated the ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would, “prohibit abortions in cases where the probable age of the fetus is 20 weeks or later, except in cases of rape, incest against a minor or when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. Specifically, it would provide an exemption for pregnancies that are the result of rape against adult women if the woman obtained counseling or medical treatment for the rape at least 48 hours before the abortion. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest against a minor would also be exempt from the ban if the rape or incest had been reported before the abortion to law enforcement or another government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse. The measure would impose criminal penalties on doctors who violate the ban. The measure also would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to an infant born at the same gestational age through natural birth.” The vote was on cloture and the Senate rejected the bill 54 to 42; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to invoke cloture. The House had earlier passed the bill. [Senate Vote 268, 9/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 36]
- Bill Would Sentence Doctors To Up To Five Years In Jail For Violating The Ban. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill imposes criminal penalties on physicians who violate the ban, with violations subject to a maximum five-year jail sentence, fines or both. It prohibits the prosecution of the woman obtaining the abortion, however, either as the perpetrator or as a conspirator to violate the ban.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
- Bill Creates Barriers For Exceptions In The Case Of Rape Or Incest. According to Congressional Quarterly, “And while the original bill’s rape and incest provisions were onerous, they say the new language erects new barriers, including requiring rape victims to document that they received prior medical treatment or counseling, and that a second doctor be present for the abortion.” [Congressional Quarterly, 5/12/15]
¶ Cruz Supported Penalties For Abortion Providers Who Violated A Federal Abortion Ban
2021: Cruz Voted For An Amendment That Would Create Penalties For Providers That Conduct Elective Abortions At Or After 20 Weeks Of Gestation. In August 2021, Cruz voted for an amendment which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation related to improving health programs, including to establish penalties for providers of elective abortions at or after 20 weeks of gestation.” The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48-51. [Senate Vote 348, 8/11/21; Congressional Quarterly, 8/11/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 3758; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res.14]
¶ Cruz Has Opposed Language For Exceptions To Abortion Bans, Including Fighting To Keep Them Out Of The Republican Platform
¶ Cruz Opposed Abortions Even In Cases Of Rape And Incest
Cruz On Rape Or Incest Exceptions For Abortion Bans: “I Don't Believe It Makes Sense To Blame The Child.” According to the Capital Times, “Kelly then noted that Cruz doesn’t favor exceptions to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. ‘When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished and punished severely,’ Cruz said. ‘But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime, we want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end, and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.’” [Capital Times, 4/4/16]
When Asked If He Supported Abortion In Cases Of Rape, Cruz Said “Every Life Is A Precious Gift.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. Cruz was asked if he could support abortions in cases of rape, setting off a few murmurs in the room. ‘Plant,’ another man said quietly. Mr. Cruz thanked the questioner but gave no ground: ‘Every life is a precious gift,’ he said, adding that the issue was likely to come up ‘once, twice, maybe three times in the general election debates.’ When the man repeatedly interrupted, Mr. Cruz moved on: ‘Sir, we’re not going to debate, sir. Sir, sir — free speech — sir. Thank you, sir. Next question.’ The crowd applauded.” [New York Times, 1/8/16]
Cruz Said He Opposed Exceptions To Abortion Bans In Cases Of Rape And Incest. According to the Houston Chronicle, “Cruz would allow abortion only in cases in which the mother’s life is in jeopardy: ‘I think that every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected in law from conception until natural death.’” [Houston Chronicle, 10/31/12]
¶ Cruz Fought To Prevent Language On Exceptions For Rape, Incest, Or The Life Of The Mother From Being Included In 2016 Republican Platform
April 2016: Trump Said He Would Support Changes To RNC Platform Language Opposing Abortion To Include Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And The Life Of The Mother. According to CNN, “Donald Trump said Thursday he would change the Republican Party platform’s position on abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Trump made the remarks during a town hall on the ‘Today’ show on NBC on Thursday morning when host Savannah Guthrie asked him about abortion exceptions. ‘The Republican platform every four years has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child should not be infringed,’ Guthrie said. ‘And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the (abortion) exceptions that you have?’ ‘Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely,’ Trump said. ‘For the three exceptions, I would.’” [CNN, 4/21/16]
Cruz Said He Would Rally His Delegates At The 2016 RNC To Defend Original RNC Platform Language On Abortion Bans From Compromise. According to Mediaite, “In light of the fact that presumptive nominee Donald Trump has indicated that he would be willing to compromise on certain social issues on the GOP platform, Sen. Ted Cruz has vowed to defend the abortion plank. Trump said in April he would 'absolutely' want to make changes to the GOP platform's position on abortion, which does not currently make exceptions in the case of incest, rape, or the health of the mother. […] Speaking to Oklahoma radio host Pat Campbell, Cruz promised that he would work to ensure that delegates at the Republican National Convention in July defended the party's stance on abortion. 'You have my word. One of the reasons that we are continuing to work to elect conservatives to be delegates, even though Donald has the delegates to get the nomination, we intend to do everything we can to fight for conservative principles to prevent Washington forces from watering down the platform,' Cruz said. 'The platform is a manifestation of what we believe as a party, and I think it is important that it continue to reflect conservative values, free-market values, constitutional liberties, Judeo-Christian principles, the values that built this country, and that is exactly what I intend to fight for.'” [Mediaite, 5/27/16]
¶ Cruz Opposed Efforts To Protect And Expand Contraception Access
¶ Cruz Claimed Democrats Created A “Made Up Threat” On Contraceptives To Save Abortion
Cruz: “Democrats Had To Create This Made Up Threat On Contraceptives.” While appearing on MSNBC Town Hall, Cruz said, “CRUZ: Name the last presidential race where Democrats campaigned, trumpeting their support for abortion. You know, you think about the 2012 election. The 2012 election, the Democrats focused over and over again on the war on women, which was a totally made up threat, but it focused on contraceptives. It wasn’t on abortion. It was on contraceptives. […] But the fact that the Democrats had to create this made up threat on contraceptives shows that most Americans want to protect life. And I hope we have a culture that values every human life from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death.” [MSNBC, 4/14/16]
¶ Cruz Refused To Say Whether He Would Support IUD Forms Of Birth Control
Cruz Declined To Answer When Pressed If He Thought IUDs Were An Acceptable Form Of Contraceptive. According to Politico, “Cruz has been outspoken about his fondness for birth control — at times uncomfortably so. ‘Heidi and I, we have two little girls. I’m very glad we don’t have 17,’ he said at a campaign event earlier this year in Iowa. ‘Last I checked we don’t have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college we had a machine in the bathroom, you put .50 cents in and voila.’ Cruz repeated his joke about the number of kids to Todd but declined to answer when pressed if he thinks IUDs, which some conservatives oppose, are an acceptable form of contraceptive.” [Politico, 4/14/16]
¶ Cruz Opposed The Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate
On 2016 Presidential Campaign Website, Cruz Said He “Defended Hobby Lobby And Conestoga Wood” Against Having To Cover Contraception Under The Affordable Care Act. According to Ted Cruz 2016 Presidential Campaign Website, “Defended Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against Obamacare’s contraception mandate.” [Ted Cruz 2016 Presidential Campaign Website, Accessed 1/18/16]
¶ Cruz Called The Birth Control Mandate A “Faith Fine”
Cruz Called On Obama To “Drop His Faith Fines” By Ending The Affordable Care Act’s Birth Control Mandate. According to The Hill, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called on President Obama to ‘drop his faith fines’ by ending the ObamaCare birth control mandate. ‘What has become of the Democratic Party?’ Cruz said on the Senate floor Wednesday. ‘When did they become so extreme that they would go after nuns?’ Cruz’s comments came ahead of a Senate vote on Democratic legislation that would require for-profit companies to offer birth control coverage in staff health plans.” [The Hill, 7/16/14]
¶ Cruz Called The Mandate A “War on The Catholic Church”
Cruz: “Senate Democrats Should Not Wage War On The Catholic Church” By Keep Contraception Mandate In Place. According to The Hill, “Democrats moved the legislation as a response to last month’s Supreme Court ruling rejecting the healthcare law’s mandate that employers include coverage for birth control in their employee health plans. Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall’s (D-Colo.) bill keeps the ObamaCare exemption for churches and religious nonprofits. But Cruz insisted that the legislation would require nuns to pay for health insurance that covers contraceptives or force them to pay a fine. ‘The bill being offered on the floor would shut these nuns down … fine them millions of dollars unless these Catholic nuns are willing to pay for abortion inducing drugs for others,’ Cruz said. ‘Senate Democrats should not wage war on the Catholic Church.’” [The Hill, 7/16/14]
¶ Cruz Supported The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision
Cruz Called The Hobby Lobby Decision An Affirmation That Americans “Have A Right To Live And Work In Accordance To Their Conscience.” According to the New York Times, “Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the leading voices of the Republican Party’s right flank and a possible 2016 presidential candidate, called the decision an affirmation that Americans ‘have a right to live and work in accordance to their conscience.’” [New York Times, 6/30/14]
- In Hobby Lobby Case, The Supreme Court Ruled That Corporations With Deeply Held Religious Beliefs Can Get Away Without Providing A Full Range Of Birth Control Options Under Affordable Care Act. According to ABC News, “In a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women’s right’s groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. […] The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines.” [ABC News, 6/30/14]
Cruz Praised The Supreme Court’s Decision In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby As A “Landmark Victory For Religious Liberty.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement commending the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. ‘Today the Supreme Court handed our nation a landmark victory for religious liberty. The decision affirms that Americans, contrary to what the Obama Administration attempted to impose, have a right to live and work in accordance to their conscience and can’t be forced to surrender their religious freedom once they open a business.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/30/14]
Cruz Spoke Outside The Supreme Court, Saying That Hobby Lobby In Their Case. According to Breitbart, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke outside the Supreme Court in the middle of a snow storm to support Hobby Lobby, the Oklahoma-based craft store, arguing before the Court that they should not be forced to provide birth control coverage in their employee's health plan, as dictated by a provisions in the Affordable Care Act.” [Breitbart, 3/25/14]
Cruz Tweeted That He Was “Proud To Stand With Hobby Lobby Case Against Obamacare Contraception Mandate.” According to a tweet from Cruz’s official account, “Proud to stand w/ @HobbyLobbyCase against Obamacare contraception mandate” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 3/22/14]
Cruz Tweeted That He Was Proud To Join Cornyn, Lee, And Vitter In Supporting The Challenge To The Obamacare Contraception Mandate. According to a tweet from Cruz’s official account, “Proud to join @JohnCornyn, @SenMikeLee & @DavidVitter supporting challenge to Obamacare contraception mandate” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 3/13/14]
Cruz Said He Supported Hobby Lobby In Fight Against Contraception Mandate. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement reiterating his support for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties as oral arguments for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius begin tomorrow at the U.S. Supreme Court. ‘The Supreme Court has the opportunity to affirm our fundamental right to religious freedom,’ Sen. Cruz said. ‘Time and time again, President Obama has granted exemptions to the politically powerful, yet refuses to grant the same leniency to those for whom Obamacare's contraception mandate infringes on their beliefs. I urge the court to unequivocally stand up for the First Amendment rights of all Americans and stop the government from forcing employers with valid religious objections to violate their faith.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 3/24/14]
[Video] Cruz Said The Hobby Lobby Case Had “Absolutely Nothing” To Do With “Access To Contraceptives.” According to a speech Cruz gave at Ave Maria Law School, “According to the government, according to the media – although I repeat myself – the Hobby Lobby case is about whether individuals in America can have access to contraceptives. That has absolutely nothing to do with this. There is no doubt that in our country any American – any man or woman – who wants to use contraceptives can do so. That is not in any way, shape or form implicated in that case. The Hobby Lobby case is about a very different question. Can the federal government force a Christian company like Hobby Lobby to pay for contraceptives for others that violate their religious tenets? I know Ave Maria University is litigating right now this very same issue. Let me say on behalf of some of the millions who value our religious liberty, value our Constitutional rights, thank you to Ave Maria. And the starkest case in the country that illustrates just how extreme the administration position is the case concerning the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a convent of nuns who have taken a vow of poverty, who devote their lives to caring for the elderly, caring for the poor and providing health care and this administration is litigating against them trying to extract millions of dollars of fines because they want to force the nuns to pay for contraceptives in violation of their faith.” [Ted Cruz, Ave Maria Law School, Naples, FL, 4/11/14]
Cruz Called The Hobby Lobby Decision An Affirmation That Americans “Have A Right To Live And Work In Accordance To Their Conscience.” According to the New York Times, “Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the leading voices of the Republican Party’s right flank and a possible 2016 presidential candidate, called the decision an affirmation that Americans ‘have a right to live and work in accordance to their conscience.’” [New York Times, 6/30/14]
¶ Cruz Voted At Least Twice To Eliminate The ACA Mandated Coverage
2013: Cruz Voted To Support Allowing Employers To Claim Exemptions To ACA’s Provisions On Health Care And Contraception Coverage On The Basis Of Religious And Moral Objections. In March 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to the National Law Review, “would allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage on moral grounds.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care, in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 44 to 55. [Senate Vote 55, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/22/13; National Law Review, 3/25/13]
2013: Cruz Voted To Oppose Protecting ACA’s Health Care And Contraception Coverage Provisions For Women. In March 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, would “protect women’s healthcare coverage and employer-provided contraceptive coverage authorized under the Affordable Care Act.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women’s access to health care, including primary and preventative health care, family planning and birth control, and employer-provided contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the Affordable Care Act.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 56 to 43. The underlying budget resolution later passed the Senate, but Congress had taken no further action on it as of September, 2013. [Senate Vote 54, 3/22/13; The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/21/13; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]
¶ Cruz Voted Against Protecting ACA Contraception Mandate
2013: Cruz Voted To Oppose Protecting ACA’s Health Care And Contraception Coverage Provisions For Women. In March 2013, Cruz voted against an amendment that, according to The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, would “protect women’s healthcare coverage and employer-provided contraceptive coverage authorized under the Affordable Care Act.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women’s access to health care, including primary and preventative health care, family planning and birth control, and employer-provided contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the Affordable Care Act.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate adopted the amendment by a vote of 56 to 43. The underlying budget resolution later passed the Senate, but Congress had taken no further action on it as of September, 2013. [Senate Vote 54, 3/22/13; The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/21/13; Congressional Actions, S.Con.Res. 8]
- The Affordable Care Act Required Most Health Plans And Insurance Policies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception. According to a blog post on the Department of Health and Human Services website, “This law lowers the costs of health care for women, increases access to quality health care, and pays attention to the distinct health needs of women and families. […] The new health care law already requires most health plans and insurance policies to cover recommended preventive services at no additional cost. This means that, each year, a woman can have a well-woman visit with her doctor at no cost to her. It also means we can get free screenings for breast and cervical cancer; FDA-approved contraception; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for domestic violence; smoking cessation medications and services; and more.” [HHS Blog Post, 8/7/13]
- HHS Announced That While Contraception Coverage Must Be Included In Insurance, Some Religious Organizations Would Be Exempt From Paying For The Contraception Coverage; Other Religious Organizations That Employed People Outside Their Faith Were Given A Year To Comply. According to The White House Blog, “Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception. On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations including churches would be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception. Other religious organizations, including those that employ people of different faiths, can qualify for a one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law. In recent days, there has been some confusion about how this policy affects religious institutions. We want to make sure you have the facts: Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception. No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.” [The White House Blog, 2/1/13]
- The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Questioned The Validity Of HHS’s Religious Exemptions: “If There Is No Charge To The Plan Sponsor Or Enrollees, The Question Arises: What Funds Will The Insurer Use To Pay For Contraceptives, Sterilization Procedures, And Related Education And Counseling?” According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “In their announcement, HHS officials said that the proposal would ensure that no employers with religious objections would have to feel like they were supporting or paying for birth control coverage (See related story CQ HealthBeat, Feb. 1, 2013). The idea is to keep coverage at arm’s length by requiring those institutions’ insurers to write separate policies for birth control needs. But the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] bishops asked: ‘If there is no charge to the plan sponsor or enrollees, the question arises: what funds will the insurer use to pay for contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling?’ HHS says the policies would be cost neutral. But the bishops say that there is only one funding stream available and that is employer premiums so the plan is ‘not truly separate.’” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
- Opponents Of HHS’s Contraception Mandate Criticized The Rule For Failing To Include Exemptions For Private, Secular Employers Who Have Religious Or Moral Objections To Providing Birth Control Coverage For Their Employees. According to Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued 24 pages of objections in response to a rule the Department of Health and Human Services proposed on employer coverage of contraceptive services under the health care law. The official comments, filed this week, are sharply critical of the proposed rule for not including some kind of exemption for private, secular employers who have religious or moral objections to covering birth control for their workers. ‘Virtually all Americans who enroll in a health plan will ultimately be required to have contraceptive coverage for themselves and their dependents, whether they want it or not,’ said the bishops. They cited the case of a Bible publisher that’s filed suit against the proposal and been granted an injunction. In addition, the bishops raised numerous questions about a compromise the Obama administration issued that would set up a system under which separate, individual health insurance policies would be written for employees at colleges, hospitals and charities that have religious objections to providing coverage.” [Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat, 3/22/13]
¶ Cruz Voted Against Legislation Overturning Hobby Lobby Decision
2014: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Barring For-Profit Employers From Excluding Contraception, Or Any Other Federally Required Coverage, From The Health Coverage They Provide Their Employees. In July 2014, Cruz effectively voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would prohibit employers from refusing to cover contraception or any other type of health coverage guaranteed under federal law for their employees and dependents. It includes language that would ensure that exemptions for places of worship and religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations remain in place.” The vote was on a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consider the bill, which required 60 votes to succeed. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 56 to 43. [Senate Vote 228, 7/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14]
- Congressional Quarterly: If Enacted, Bill Would “Upend” Hobby Lobby Decision. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Senators blocked legislation Wednesday that would have required Hobby Lobby and other private employers with religious interests to pay for birth control. […] The bill (S 2578) would upend a Supreme Court ruling last month in a case involving Hobby Lobby, in which they argued that they should not have to cover employees’ contraception, as required by President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, because of the owner’s religious beliefs. The Supreme Court agreed.” [Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14]
2013: Cruz Voted To Support Allowing Employers To Claim Exemptions To ACA’s Provisions On Health Care And Contraception Coverage On The Basis Of Religious And Moral Objections. In March 2013, Cruz voted for an amendment that, according to the National Law Review, “would allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage on moral grounds.” According to the Congressional Record, the purpose of the amendment was to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care, in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience.” The vote was on an amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 44 to 55. [Senate Vote 55, 3/22/13; Congressional Record, 3/22/13; National Law Review, 3/25/13]
- The Affordable Care Act Required Most Health Plans And Insurance Policies To Cover FDA-Approved Contraception. According to a blog post on the Department of Health and Human Services website, “This law lowers the costs of health care for women, increases access to quality health care, and pays attention to the distinct health needs of women and families. […] The new health care law already requires most health plans and insurance policies to cover recommended preventive services at no additional cost. This means that, each year, a woman can have a well-woman visit with her doctor at no cost to her. It also means we can get free screenings for breast and cervical cancer; FDA-approved contraception; breastfeeding support and equipment; screening and counseling for domestic violence; smoking cessation medications and services; and more.” [HHS Blog Post, 8/7/13]
HHS Announced That While Contraception Coverage Must Be Included In Insurance, Some Religious Organizations Would Be Exempt From Paying For The Contraception Coverage; Other Religious Organizations That Employed People Outside Their Faith Were Given A Year To Comply. According to The White House Blog, “Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception. On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations including churches would be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception. Other religious organizations, including those that employ people of different faiths, can qualify for a one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law. In recent days, there has been some confusion about how this policy affects religious institutions. We want to make sure you have the facts: Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception. No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.” [The White House Blog, 2/1/13]
¶ Cruz Supported The Little Sisters Of The Poor In Their Quest To Get Out Of Providing Birth Control Coverage
Cruz: “The Federal Government Is Trying To Force [The Little Sisters Of The Poor] To Pay For Abortion. If You’re Litigating Against Nuns, You’ve Probably Done Something Wrong.” According to Breitbart, “Cruz then touched on religious liberties and mentioned Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious group that does not want to subsidize birth control for moral reason. ‘The federal government is trying to force them to pay for abortion,’ Cruz said. ‘If you’re litigating against nuns, you’ve probably done something wrong.’” [Breitbart, 6/6/14]
- Little Sisters Of The Poor Sought To Challenge Contraception Coverage Requirements Under The Affordable Care Act. According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to reject a lawsuit filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns challenging requirements for many employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control or face penalties under the new health care law.” [New York Times, 1/3/14]
Cruz Said He Hoped The Supreme Court Would “Not Force Religious Institutions To Choose Between Their Conscience And An Unjust Mandate.” In a Senator Ted Cruz Facebook blog, Ted Cruz wrote, “The Obama Administration exempts thousands of businesses from the HHS abortion-pill mandate. But when it comes to applying the same exemptions to nuns, priests, and religious schools, the federal government refuses to do so. Instead, it threatens to fine organizations, like Little Sisters of the Poor, up to $70 million for not funding services they find morally objectionable. I hope the Supreme Court will decide to #LetThemServe, and not force religious institutions to choose between their conscience and an unjust mandate. These are people of faith seeking to serve the most vulnerable communities, and rather than assisting their efforts, this administration is crippling their ability to do so. Faith fines have no place in our democracy.” [Facebook, Sen. Ted Cruz, 3/23/16]
¶ Cruz Called For FDA To Pull Mifeprex, Claiming The Pill Did Not “Cure Or Prevent Any Disease”
Cruz Wrote Op-Ed Calling For The FDA To Pull Mifeprex, Saying It Provided No Medical Benefit And Threatened Women’s Health. According to an op-ed for National Review from Sen. Cruz and Lila Rose, “While COVID-19 dominates the news cycle, a battle is being fought over a deadly drug that has killed over 3.7 million children and at least 24 women. The drug is Mifeprex — commonly known as the abortion pill. On July 13, an Obama-appointed federal judge enjoined the Food and Drug Administration requirements governing the prescription of Mifeprex. […] The FDA should protect the public health of Americans and pull this lethal drug, Mifeprex and its approved generics, from the market immediately.” [National Review, Ted Cruz and Lila Rose, 8/10/20]
Cruz Op-Ed: “The Abortion Pill Is Not Medicine.” According to an op-ed for National Review from Sen. Cruz and Lila Rose, “The Mifeprex regimen has unleashed horrors on America’s women and children while providing no medical benefit. Killing innocent children, endangering mothers, and abusing the health-care system to do harm is tragic. And as long as this deadly drug remains on the U.S. market, it will pose a serious health risk. Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. The abortion pill is not medicine.” [National Review, Ted Cruz and Lila Rose, 8/10/20]
Cruz Op-Ed Called FDA Approval Of Mifeprex In 2000 “Highly Politicized.” According to an op-ed for National Review from Sen. Cruz and Lila Rose, “The first drug in the abortion-pill regimen, Mifeprex was approved by the FDA in 2000 after a highly politicized scramble within the Clinton administration. […] Mifeprex was designed specifically to kill the developing child and is approved for use up to ten weeks, at which point a child has arms, eyelids, toes, fingers, and organs.” [National Review, Ted Cruz and Lila Rose, 8/10/20]
Cruz Led Group Of 20 Republican Senators Urging FDA To Classify Mifeprex As “Imminent Hazard To The Public Health.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) led a group of 20 Republican senators in urging U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn to exercise the FDA's authority to classify the abortion pill Mifeprex (or mifepristone) as an ‘imminent hazard to the public health’ that poses a ‘significant threat of danger,’ a classification that would result in the removal of this pill from the U.S. Market. In a letter to Commissioner Hahn, the senators wrote: ‘It is by now nakedly obvious that the abortion industry and its allies in the media, billionaire philanthropic circles, and special interest groups, have wanted an unregulated and demedicalized abortion pill since the moment the FDA first approved it in 2000. As you may further know, the Clinton administration approved this lethal drug under pressure from these same groups and under a highly politicized approval process. We believe this deadly pill should never have been approved, yet the abortion industry was politically rewarded with an accelerated approval process normally reserved for high-risk drugs that address life-threatening illnesses like AIDS.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 9/1/20]
¶ Cruz Received Criticism For Comments That Abortion Pill Did Not “Cure Or Prevent Any Disease”
Cruz: “Pregnancy Is Not A Life-Threatening Illness, And The Abortion Pill Does Not Cure Or Prevent Any Disease.” According to Cruz’s official Twitter, “Pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness, and the abortion pill does not cure or prevent any disease. Make no mistake, Mifeprex is a dangerous pill. That’s why 20 of my Republican colleagues and I are urging @US_FDA to classify it as such.” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 9/2/20]
- Cruz Remarks On Pregnancy And Illness Received Criticism From Public Health Experts. According to USA Today, “Sen. Ted Cruz came under fire from abortion-rights proponents after saying Wednesday on social media that pregnancy is not a ‘life-threatening illness’ when the U.S. has the highest maternal death rate out of the world's developed nations. […] ‘No, it's not an illness, but it is life-threatening,’ reproductive and public health expert Dr. Beverly Winikoff told USA TODAY in response to Cruz's remark. ‘The odds of dying in pregnancy are higher than dying from this drug. So in fact, if you wanted to make a risk calculation, it's actually safer to have a medical abortion, than it is to have a full-term pregnancy. We have data on that.’” [USA Today, 9/3/20]
¶ Cruz Called Contraception “Abortion-Inducing Drugs” During Amy Coney Barrett Hearing
Cruz Referred To Contraception As “Abortion-Inducing Drugs” During Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Hearing. According to Newsweek, “Reproductive health care nonprofit Planned Parenthood corrected comments made by Senator Ted Cruz during Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where he referred to birth control pills as ‘abortion inducing drugs.’ The Texas senator referred to birth control as such when discussing assumed threats on religious freedom, referencing the Supreme Court case of The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. ‘It also extends to religious liberty. The Little Sisters of the Poor, our Catholic Convent of nuns, who take oaths of poverty, who devote their lives to caring for the sick, caring for the needy, caring for the elderly, and the Obama administration litigated against the little sisters of the poor, seeking to fine them in order to force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs among others,’ he said during his lengthy address at the hearings.” [Newsweek, 10/13/20]
- Planned Parenthood Criticized Cruz Comments On Contraception: “5 Years Later And Ted Cruz Hasn’t Learned.” According to Newsweek, “The nonprofit quote-tweeted its own tweet from October 2015, where it called out the senator during a GOP debate, for referring to birth control pills as ‘abortion inducing drug[s].’ The tweet mocked him calling him a ‘Gynotician,’ which the Planned Parenthood website explains is ‘A politician who feels more qualified than you or your doctor to make your personal health care decisions.’ […] In the tweet Tuesday, Planned Parenthood called out Cruz. ‘5 years later and Ted Cruz hasn't learned,’ the organization wrote. ‘But the facts remain: Birth control can't cause an abortion. But both abortion and birth control ARE health care.’” [Newsweek, 10/13/20]
¶ Following Dobbs, Cruz Called Bill To Protect Contraception Access A “Made Up Political Issue”
Cruz Called A House Bill To Protect Access Was “Made Up Political Issue.” According to Axios, “Some Republican senators say they are open to reviewing a House-passed bill protecting access to birth control, potentially teeing up another surprising bipartisan response to fallout from the overturning of Roe v. Wade. […] Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that ‘there is zero threat of contraception being taken away, it's a made up political issue.’” [Axios, 7/22/22]
¶ Cruz Has Engaged In Extreme Rhetoric, Fought To Defund Planned Parenthood
¶ Cruz Supported Defunding Planned Parenthood
¶ Cruz Opposed Taxpayer Funding Of Planned Parenthood
Cruz: “Planned Parenthood’s Practices Are Horrifying, And The Organization Is Not Worthy Of Taxpayer Funding.” According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “Planned Parenthood’s practices are horrifying, and the organization is not worthy of taxpayer funding. Gov. Abbott’s efforts to protect the lives of the unborn should be emulated in states across the country, and I will continue to lead the fight in the U.S. Senate to defund Planned Parenthood and direct funding to alternatives that offer high-quality, affordable women’s health care.” [Press Release- Ted Cruz, 10/28/15]
Cruz: “The Abortion Industry Places More Value On Killing Babies Than It Does On The Sanctity Of Human Life, And Under No Circumstance Should It Receive Taxpayer Funds. This Is More Than A Mere Fiscal Matter - This Is A Moral Issue.” According to an op-ed by Ted Cruz and published by USA Today, “The abortion industry places more value on killing babies than it does on the sanctity of human life, and under no circumstance should it receive taxpayer funds. This is more than a mere fiscal matter - this is a moral issue. How we handle this issue reflects who we are as Americans and what we value most - either the lives of the most innocent and the health of our nation’s mothers, daughters and sisters or the fiscal solvency of an industry that exists to abort babies.” [Ted Cruz Op-Ed – USA Today, 8/20/15]
Cruz: “I Intend To Lead The Fight In The United States Senate To Defund Planned Parenthood.” According to an op-ed by Sen. Cruz for USA Today, “I intend to lead the fight in the United States Senate to defund Planned Parenthood, even while investigations continue. The time for show votes is over. Funding the federal government does not require funding Planned Parenthood. But basic decency and our commitment to the right to life does require that we stop taxpayer funding of abortions and any trade in baby parts.” [USA Today, Ted Cruz, 8/20/15]
¶ Cruz Said Taxpayer Funding Of Planned Parenthood Was An “Assault On Our Liberties”
[Video] Cruz Said Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood Was An “Assault On Our Liberties.” According to an appearance on Today’s Issues Radio, “Tony Perkins: I wonder if the timing here, it seems very suspect to me, but after Texas decided to stop this funding of Planned Parenthood, I think it was a week before last the story came out of Texas that Planned Parenthood as a result of losing this funding was closing about twelve of their abortion clinics in Texas. That was a story that was beginning to get traction around the country, giving other legislatures encouragement to take steps like Texas. Is this an effort to cut that off at the pass and try to say ‘hey, you better slow down or else we’re going to come after funding in other areas’? Ted Cruz: I think it was exactly that. The disturbing thing Tony is you and I and every American are involuntarily the largest funders of Planned Parenthood in this country because the federal government and the Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail to send millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood. You and I are both strongly pro-life, have been fighting to defend the right to life for many years, the idea that we are facing an administration that is so radical that they will do anything they can to defend and expand the taxpayer money to pay for Planned Parenthood and to fund the abortion industry, that is really dismaying and it is typical of the assault on our liberties that is proceeding relentlessly everyday under the Obama administration.” [Today’s Issues Radio, 3/13/12]
- Cruz: That President Obama “Is Willing To Hold 130,000 Low Income Texas Women Hostage In Order To Make Sure That Planned Parenthood Makes Their Money.” According to an appearance on Today’s Issues Radio, “Tony Perkins: Let me get your first impressions, the Governor who you know well and the legislature whom you’ve worked with, they said, ‘We’re not going to be part of funding Planned Parenthood.’ They took the steps, that’s rightfully theirs, and so now I can’t explain it as anything other than blackmail from the Obama administration cutting off funds to some of the most needy people in the state of Texas. Ted Cruz: Tony you’re exactly right. The Obama administration has been the most radical administration this country has ever seen, he is the most radical president this country has ever seen. On this issue, his concern is quite simply political, it is ensuring that the money flow continues to Planned Parenthood and to the abortion industry, and he is willing to hold 130,000 low income Texas women hostage in order to make sure that Planned Parenthood makes their money. It’s cynical, it’s partisan and it’s wrong.” [Today’s Issues Radio, 3/13/12]
¶ November 2016: Cruz Penned Op-Ed With Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Calling For Defunding Planned Parenthood
On 100th Anniversary Of Planned Parenthood, Cruz Joined Lt. Gov. Patrick In An Op-Ed Calling For Defunding The Organization. According to an op-ed from Sen. Cruz and Lt. Gov. Patrick for the Houston Chronicle, “This month marks the 100th anniversary of the organization that we know today as Planned Parenthood. Please excuse us for not celebrating the occasion. Planned Parenthood, after all, is the largest abortion provider in America, accounting for one out of every three abortions. Over the course of its existence, Planned Parenthood has been responsible for the deaths of almost 7 million unborn children. […] While Texas continues to lead on pro-life issues, it cannot alone win the struggle for life. The federal government must also take action. Congress should, once and for all, end all taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, and it should enact the Conscience Protection Act, which would prohibit the federal government, as well as state and local governments that receive federal dollars for health-related activities, from penalizing doctors for refusing to perform an abortion in violation of their conscience.” [Houston Chronicle, Sen. Cruz and Lt. Gov. Patrick, 10/29/16]
¶ Cruz Voted Multiple Times To Defund Planned Parenthood
2015: Cruz Voted For A Bill That Defunded Planned Parenthood Less Than One Week After The Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting. In December 2015, Cruz voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “scrap[ed] in 2018 the law's Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges.” Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance.” The vote was on passage of a reconciliation bill. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 52 to 47. The bill heads back to the House. President Obama has said he will veto. [Senate Vote 329, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15]
2015: Cruz Effectively Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In December 2015, Cruz effectively voted for defunding Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section of the measure that would block for one year federal funding that is considered direct spending to Planned Parenthood.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline required a 3/5’s majority. The Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 48 to 52. [Senate Vote 314, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15]
2015: Cruz Voted For Defunding Planned Parenthood. In May 2015, Cruz voted for barring all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. According to CNN, “The fight over funding for Planned Parenthood shifts to a must-pass government funding measure this fall after a procedural vote in the Senate on legislation that would have barred all federal funds for the group failed on Monday.” The vote was on cloture the Motion to Proceed; the motion was rejected by a vote of 53 to 46; 60 Senators voting yes would have been required to proceed. [Senate Vote 262, 8/3/15; CNN, 8/4/15]
¶ 2015: Cruz Said Willing To Shut Down The Government Over Planned Parenthood Funding
Cruz Told Politico He Was Willing To See A Government Shutdown Over Planned Parenthood Funding. According to Politico.com, “Calling next week’s Senate roll call to defund Planned Parenthood a ‘legislative show vote,’ GOP firebrand Ted Cruz said Republicans should do everything they can to eliminate federal money for the group -- even if it means a government shutdown fight this fall. […] In a Wednesday interview, Cruz said the GOP should go as hard as it can to block funding for Planned Parenthood, including the same strategy he tried to use to defund Obamacare in 2013: force the issue by blocking funding in a government spending bill that must pass by Sept. 30. Asked whether he would support such a maneuver again, Cruz replied: ‘I would support any and all legislative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. We do not need a legislative show-vote.’” [Politico.com, 7/29/15]
Cruz Enlisted Christian Pastors To Help Mobilize Voters To Force His Colleagues’ Hands And Threaten A Government Shutdown. According to the Huffington Post, “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) thinks Republican leaders are bluffing when they say they want to defund Planned Parenthood, so he is enlisting Christian pastors across the nation to help mobilize voters to force his colleagues' hands and threaten a government shutdown. Cruz implored more than a thousand pastors and religious leaders on Tuesday to ‘preach from the pulpit’ against Planned Parenthood and rally public support for an amendment defunding the family provider in the must-pass federal budget bill in November. If Congress attaches the defunding amendment to the budget instead of holding a vote on the standalone bill, it cannot keep funding Planned Parenthood without shutting down the whole federal government.” [Huffington Post, 8/25/15]
Cruz: “It Will Be A Decision Of The President's And The President's Alone Whether He Would Veto Funding For The Federal Government Because Of A Commitment To Ensuring Taxpayer Dollars Continue To Flow To What Appears To Be A National Criminal Organization.” According to the Huffington Post, “Cruz said pastors should tell their congregations to call their members of Congress and insist that Republicans use the federal budget to defund Planned Parenthood. He said it would be President Barack Obama's fault if the government shuts down -- not the GOP's. ‘It will be a decision of the president's and the president's alone whether he would veto funding for the federal government because of a commitment to ensuring taxpayer dollars continue to flow to what appears to be a national criminal organization,’ Cruz said.” [Huffington Post, 8/25/15]
Cruz: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Should Not Schedule Or Facilitate The Consideration Of Any Legislation That Gives Federal Money To Planned Parenthood.” According to an op-ed by Sen. Cruz for USA Today, “For this reason, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should not schedule or facilitate the consideration of any legislation that gives federal money to Planned Parenthood.” [USA Today, Ted Cruz, 8/20/15]
- Cruz Circulated Letter To McConnell Urging Against Adopting Any Legislation Providing Funding For Planned Parenthood. According to Congressional Quarterly News, “Cruz, meanwhile, is circulating a letter to be sent to McConnell in the coming weeks, doubling down on his intention to use ‘any and every procedural tool available’ to defund Planned Parenthood, as he told reporters before the August recess. ‘We urge you not to schedule or facilitate the consideration of any legislation that authorizes or appropriates federal dollars for Planned Parenthood,’ a draft of the letter reads. Cruz’s office said the senator is still seeking signatures from his colleagues before sending the letter to McConnell.” [Congressional Quarterly News, 9/10/15]
¶ Cruz Voted Against Funding For Security Outside Of Health Centers Providing Abortions
2015: Cruz Effectively Voted Against Stripping A Bill Of A Provision Defunding Planned Parenthood While Also Establishing A Fund To Provide Payments To Women’s Health Clinics For Security. In December 2015, Cruz effectively voted against stripping a bill of a provision defunding Planned Parenthood while also establishing a fund to provide payments to women’s health clinics for security. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have “remove[d] the section that would block for one year federal funding to Planned Parenthood. It also would [have] establish[ed] a fund to make payments to women's health clinics to provide services and to ensure safety of such clinics.” The underlying legislation was a substitute amendment repealing key provisions of the Affordable Care Act while also defunding Planned Parenthood. The vote was on a motion to table. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 54 to 46. [Senate Vote 311, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15]
¶ Cruz Opposed Margaret Sanger Bust In National Portrait Gallery
Cruz Called For Bust Of Margaret Sanger To Be Removed From National Portrait Gallery. According to Congressional Quarterly News, “Two Texas lawmakers are leading a call for a bust of a Planned Parenthood founder to be removed from the National Portrait Gallery. ‘We the undersigned Members of Congress demand that the bust of Margaret Sanger be immediately removed from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery and not be displayed in or on any Smithsonian-operated property. The fact that her bust has been included as a part of the Gallery’s ‘Struggle for Justice’ exhibit is an affront both to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice,’ wrote 26 GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Louie Gohmert. ‘Ms. Sanger was an avowed advocate of eugenics and the extermination of groups of people she deemed as ‘undesirables.’’” [Congressional Quarterly News, 10/13/15]
¶ Cruz Fought For Texas To Be Able To Defund Planned Parenthood
Cruz Defended The State Of Texas’s “Right To Defund Planned Parenthood In Federal Court.” According to The Texas Tribune, “Asked about the state’s recent fight with federal counterparts over blocking funding to Planned Parenthood for women’s health services, the candidates stuck to partisan positions. Dewhurst said he was proud of the move and the three other Republicans offered support. Cruz noted that he defended the state’s right to defund Planned Parenthood in federal court. Sadler said it was ‘ridiculous’ that the state was singling out Planned Parenthood when the public money it receives from Texas doesn’t fund abortions.” [Texas Tribune, 5/3/12]
¶ Cruz Repeatedly Used Extreme Rhetoric On Planned Parenthood
¶ Trafficking In “The Death Of Little Babies”
Cruz Said The U.S. “Has Created An Industry That Traffics In The Death Of Little Babies. And The Sale For Profit Of Their Body Parts.” According to the Washington Post, “Cruz also said the government is targeting Christians. ‘The federal government wages a daily assault on life, on marriage, on religious liberty. It’s because Christians are not standing up for our values,’ he said. He also aimed his barbs at the media, pointing to a bank of cameras and asking why it hasn’t aired videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the donation of fetal tissue in a seemingly cavalier manner. The audience turned around and cheered. Cruz said the ‘nation has created an industry that traffics in the death of little babies. and the sale for profit of their body parts.’” [Washington Post, 11/14/15]
¶ “Criminal Enterprise”
Cruz Called Planned Parenthood A “Criminal Enterprise.” According to Politico, “‘We should use any and every procedural means we have available to end funding for Planned Parenthood,’ Cruz said. ‘It should be a very easy decision that taxpayer funds will not go to fund an ongoing criminal enterprise.’” [Politico, 8/3/15]
¶ “Evil”
[Video] Cruz Called Planned Parenthood “Evil.” According to an appearance by Cruz on the Kelly File, “These tapings of Planned Parenthood selling body parts are grotesque. It highlights the evil of what they’re doing.” [“Kelly File,” Fox News, 7/15/15]
[Video] Cruz Called Planned Parenthood Videos “The Face Of Evil.” According to a Cruz tele-town hall, “Watching these videos you cannot help but be repulsed at the callous disregard for human life manifested in these videos, but beyond that, the videos not only show the face of evil. They also appear to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of criminal conduct. There are multiple federal laws that appear to be broken on these videos. It is a federal crime – a felony with up to 10 years jail time – for anyone to sell body parts of unborn children for a profit. It is also a federal crime for abortion doctors to change the method of abortion for the purpose of harvesting organs. Moreover, it is also a federal crime to harvest the organs from an aborted child without the mother’s informed consent. On each of these videos, it appears that Planned Parenthood officials are committing multiple felonies, one after the other after the other.” [Ted Cruz, Tele-Town Hall, 8/25/15]
¶ Cruz Opposed The Women’s Health Protection Act
¶ 2022: Cruz Voted Against The Women’s Protection Act
2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Codify The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Abortion Services And The Right For Patients To Receive Abortion Services. In May 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to invoke cloture on the Schumer motion to proceed to the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 49-51. [Senate Vote 170, 5/11/22; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]
- The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions Before Fetal Viability, Only Allowing Abortions After Viability Only When The Pregnancy Were To Pose A Life-Threatening Risk To The Pregnant Patient. According to the Washington Post, “The Democratic bill outlaws any limitation on abortion before fetal viability, while allowing abortions after viability ‘when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.’” [Washington Post, 5/11/22]
2022: Cruz Effectively Voted Against The Women's Health Protection Act Of 2021, Which Would Protect The Right To Abortion Access And Prohibit Restrictions On Abortion. In February 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Cruz voted against the “motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Schumer, D-N.Y., motion to proceed to the bill.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 46-48. [Senate Vote 65, 2/28/22; Congressional Quarterly, 2/28/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3755]
- The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions And Establish That Health Care Providers Have A Right To Provide Abortions And Individuals Have The Right To Receive An Abortion. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Passage of the bill that would statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
The Bill Would Prohibit Abortion Restrictions, Including Measures Restricting Abortions Before Fetal Viability And When The Patient’s Life Is At Risk, Measures Requiring Justification For Seeking An Abortion, And Measures Requiring Medical Personnel To Provide Inaccurate Information Or Unnecessary Medical Tests To Discourage Abortions. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient’s life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers’ ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient’s health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities.” [Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/21]
Cruz Said Abortion Legislation Went “Further” Than Codifying Roe v. Wade, Would Eradicate State Laws. According to Cruz’s official Twitter, “Let’s be very clear: Today’s vote would not codify Roe v. Wade. It would go much further, eradicating the common-sense abortion laws that Texans and others have enacted through the democratic process. 1/x,” “The Democrats’ extreme pro-abortion bill would require that abortion be legal up until the moment of birth, without exceptions. This is such a radical position that over 80 percent of Americans oppose it, including some Democrats in Congress. 2/x,” “I trust Texans to decide abortion laws for ourselves, not radical liberals from New York and California. I’m proud to be pro-life and proud to oppose this extreme bill. 3/x” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 5/11/22; Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 5/11/22; Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 5/11/22]
¶ 2014: Cruz Called WHPA “Extreme Legislation” And A “Very Real Manifestation Of A War On Women”
Cruz Called The Women’s Health Protection Act “Extreme Legislation” And “A Very Real Manifestation Of A War On Women.” According to the Houston Chronicle, “The sweeping legislation, called the Women’s Health Protection Act, would prohibit states from passing laws that limit access to legal abortion services if they are ‘more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures.’ Cruz called the proposal ‘extreme legislation.’ ‘It is legislation designed to force a radical view from Democrats in the Senate that abortion should be universally available, common, without limit and paid for by the taxpayer,’ Cruz said. ‘And it is also a very real manifestation of a war on women, given the enormous health consequences that unlimited abortion has had damaging the health and sometimes even the lives of women.’” [Houston Chronicle, 7/15/14]
Cruz Called Democratic Bill Protecting Abortion Rights A “Very Real Manifestation Of A War On Women.” According to National Journal Daily Extra AM, “The ‘War on Women’ finger-pointing has intensified, with jabs flying in all directions. Democrats have ramped up their focus on contraception and abortion issues ahead of the midterms, accusing Republicans of supporting legislation that restricts women’s reproductive freedom, health, and safety. Republicans have, meanwhile, tried to shift blame in the opposite direction. Such was the case Tuesday in a surprisingly subdued-for-the-topic hearing on a bill to protect women’s access to abortion services. Republicans at the hearing sought to portray abortion access and abortion itself as an assault on women’s rights. ‘This legislation is a very real manifestation of a war on women,’ Sen. Ted Cruz said at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, ‘given the health consequences that unlimited abortion access has had on many woman.’ The Women’s Health Protection Act is a response to the wave of antiabortion legislation that has passed in states in the past several years. The bill would prevent states from implementing restrictions such as admitting privileges at local hospitals for doctors, structural requirements for clinics, mandated waiting periods, and mandated ultrasounds that do not significantly advance women’s health and safety, and that make abortion services more difficult to access.” [National Journal Daily Extra AM, 7/15/14]
¶ Cruz Supported The Mexico City Rule
¶ Cruz Voted Against International Family-Planning Funding
2019: Cruz Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Continued The Mexico City Restrictions On International Family-Planning Funding. In December 2019, Cruz voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Within the total for global health programs, the agreement provides the FY 2019 level of $575 million for family planning and reproductive health programs. The measure does not take any actions with regard to the Mexico City restrictions on international family-planning funding that were reinstated by President Trump in January 2017, and it is silent on the May 2017 expansion of the policy, effectively leaving in place current restrictions.” The vote was a motion to concur. The Senate agreed to the motion by a vote of 71-23, thereby sending the bill to the president, who signed it into law. [Senate Vote 415, 12/19/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/19/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]
¶ Cruz Supported Trump Re-Implementation Of Mexico City Rule, Which Meant Taxpayer Dollars Did Not Promote Abortion Abroad
Cruz Supported Trump’s Re-Implementation Of The Mexico City Rule, Which Prohibited American Taxpayer Dollars Being Used To Promote Abortion In Foreign Countries. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “Sen. Cruz has been a leader in efforts to defend life throughout his career. Earlier this week, he joined with colleagues to reintroduce the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, which requires that a child born alive as a result of an abortion must be given the same degree of health care as any other child born alive at that gestational stage. He also advocated last Friday in a Senate resolution to reinstate the Mexico City policy to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not spent to promote abortion in foreign countries. After years of not being enforced under the Obama Administration, President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy via executive order earlier this week.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/27/17]
¶ Cruz Said He Planned To Implement Mexico City Rule As President
Cruz Said Planned To Reimpose “Mexico City Rules” As President. According to an appearance on the Kelly File, “KELLY: So is Roe v. Wade settled law in your view? CRUZ: No. And I think it was -- it was a classic example of activism. It was a -- KELLY: Even if that’s true, though, here we are some 40 years later. What would President Cruz do about it? CRUZ: Well, look, I think there’s a great deal, you can do one of the things you can do for example. And I intend to do is re-impose what are called the Mexico City rules that Ronald Reagan put in place that prohibit federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, funding abortions overseas, funding organizations --” [Kelly File, 4/4/16]
¶ Cruz Supported “Born Alive” Legislation
¶ Cruz Supported And Voted For “Born Alive” Legislation
Cruz Introduced The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “Sen. Cruz has been a leader in efforts to defend life throughout his career. Earlier this week, he joined with colleagues to reintroduce the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, which requires that a child born alive as a result of an abortion must be given the same degree of health care as any other child born alive at that gestational stage.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 1/27/17]
2019: Cruz Effectively Voted For The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In February 2019, Cruz effectively voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “require health care practitioners to provide medical care to any infant that survives an abortion procedure, to the extent legally required for any infant born at the same gestational age.” The vote was on a motion to invoke cloture, which required 60 affirmative votes. The Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 53 to 44. [Senate Vote 27, 2/25/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/19; Congressional Actions, S. 311]
- National Abortion Federation: “This Anti-Choice Bill Uses Inflammatory Language In Yet Another Attempt To Justify Politically-Motivated, Medically-Unnecessary Interference In The Practice Of Medicine, Interference That Threatens Women’s Access To Reproductive Health Care.” According to the National Abortion Federation, “This anti-choice bill uses inflammatory language in yet another attempt to justify politically-motivated, medically-unnecessary interference in the practice of medicine, interference that threatens women’s access to reproductive health care. It is an attempt to distract from the Trump-Pence assault on safe, legal abortion care and is intended to intimidate abortion providers so that they stop providing essential heath care. These bills are written by anti-choice politicians to score points with their extremist base; they disregard the health of women and their families. Today’s attempt to pass yet another inflammatory and medically unnecessary bill demonstrates, once again, that the only thing anti-choice politicians in Congress can agree upon is finding new ways to demonize women who need to access safe, legal abortion care.” [National Abortion Federation, 2/25/19]
¶ Cruz Opposed And Hassled Universities Engaging In Fetal Tissue Research
¶ Cruz Joined Pile-On Of University Of Pittsburgh Over Fetal Tissue Research, Ultimately Determined To Have Been Handled Ethically
Cruz Joined Letter To Secretary Becerra Claiming The University Of Pittsburgh Had Conducted Potentially Illegal Research With Fetal Tissue, Calling For Investigation. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “The following information was released by Texas Senator Ted Cruz: U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), along with Reps. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), this week sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, and National Institute of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins requesting a complete investigation into the University of Pittsburgh's abortion procedures and research. Recent reports from the NIH show the university may have violated federal law by altering abortion procedures solely to obtain fetal tissue. Even worse, the reports show that university researchers may have harvested organs from babies who were old enough to live outside the womb.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 9/22/21]
In Letter, Cruz And Other Senators Claimed Fetal Tissue Research Was “Ineffective,” Had Not Produced A Treatment. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), along with Reps. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), this week sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, and National Institute of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins requesting a complete investigation into the University of Pittsburgh's abortion procedures and research. […] ‘Exploiting the body parts of aborted children for research purposes is repulsive and should stop, regardless of the outcome hoped for by researchers. Research using abortive fetal tissue is unethical, wrong, and has also been proven ineffective. Despite being used in clinical research since the 1920s, fetal tissue has not produced a single clinical treatment.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 9/22/21]
- Fetal Tissue Research Was Involved With Creation Of Polio Vaccine, Rubella Vaccine, Techniques Such As In Vitro Fertilization. According to NBC News, “Doctors and scientists are denouncing the Trump administration's decision to cut funding for research that uses fetal tissue, saying that the material is essential for life-saving medical research. […] Scientists use fetal tissue as a source of fetal cells. These cells have been used for research since the 1930s, and the government has funded such research since the 1950s, when it was used to create one of the biggest medical advances of the 20th century: the polio vaccine. Since then, fetal cells have been used in hundreds of thousands of other research projects. Scientists have used them to create other vaccines, such as the rubella vaccine, and to improve a wide variety of techniques used in medicine, such as in vitro fertilization. They are also used to study birth defects, eye diseases, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, AIDS and spinal cord injuries.” [NBC News, 6/9/19]
University Of Pittsburgh Paid An Outside Firm For An Investigation Into Its Fetal Tissue Research Practices, Which Found Them “Fully Compliant With Federal And State Regulatory Requirements.” According to WESA, “An outside investigation paid for by the University of Pittsburgh has found the institution is ‘fully compliant with federal and state regulatory requirements’ regarding its use of fetal tissue in scientific research. The investigation came after the university was criticized by right-wing media for its research practices. In September, Pitt hired a Washington, D.C.-based law firm to conduct the review of its use of fetal specimens in biomedical research – including work on treatments for HIV and liver failure. The firm, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, specializes in health care law. According to its website, the firm has expertise in internal investigations and supply chain integrity.” [WESA, 1/19/22]
¶ Cruz Opposed Buffer Zones For Abortion Protesters
¶ Cruz Supported Supreme Court Decision Blocking Buffer Zones To Protect Health Center Patients
June 2014: Cruz Praised The Supreme Court For Striking Down A Law Mandating Buffer Zones In Front Of Health Centers That Provided Abortions. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the McCullen v. Coakley decision: ‘The Supreme Court vindicated the First Amendment rights of citizens who peacefully counseled women about alternatives to abortion at a Massachusetts clinic. Once again, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the litigating position of the Obama Administration, which opposed free speech rights in an amicus brief. The Court rightly invalidated a Massachusetts law that suppressed peaceful, non-obstructive speech from public sidewalks near abortion clinics.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/26/14]
- Supreme Court Ruled A Law Requiring 35-Foot “Buffer Zone” Around Health Centers Providing Abortion Care Was Unconstitutional. According to nsider, “The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a Massachusetts law that imposes a 35-foot ‘buffer zone’ around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment. The unanimous decision overturned an appellate court decision that had upheld the 2007 Massachusetts law, which criminalized standing on a ‘public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of a place where abortions are performed (except for hospitals).” [Insider, 6/26/14]
Cruz Said Buffer Zones Violated The First Amendment Rights Of Protesters “Who Peacefully Counseled Women About Alternatives To Abortion.” According to a press release from the office of Ted Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the McCullen v. Coakley decision: ‘The Supreme Court vindicated the First Amendment rights of citizens who peacefully counseled women about alternatives to abortion at a Massachusetts clinic. Once again, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the litigating position of the Obama Administration, which opposed free speech rights in an amicus brief. The Court rightly invalidated a Massachusetts law that suppressed peaceful, non-obstructive speech from public sidewalks near abortion clinics.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 6/26/14]
¶ Cruz Admonished The Obama Administration For Enforcing The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act
Cruz And Lee Accused The Justice Department Of “Frivolous Prosecutions” Against Anti-Abortion Protesters Under The FACE Act. According to Life News, “Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are accusing the Justice Department of pursuing ‘frivolous prosecutions’ against the pro-life movement and having, according to the senators’ offices, ‘what appears to be an exceptionally heavy bias’ in favor of abortion clinics over houses of worship in a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch Tuesday. The letter concerns the Justice Department’s enforcement of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law that prohibits any use or threat of force and physical obstruction outside abortion clinics and places of religious worship. The law, however, does not criminalize peaceful protests or other First Amendment-protected activities outside abortion facilities or places of worship.” [Life News, 3/30/16]
Cruz Accused The Department Of Justice Of Enforcing A “Warped And Biased Enforcement” Of The FACE Act. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) seemingly lopsided enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994. The FACE Act is enforced by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, and prohibits any use or threat of force and physical obstruction that intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with any person seeking (1) to obtain or provide reproductive health services, or (2) to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. The senators are concerned about what appears to be an exceptionally heavy bias within the DOJ toward pursuing cases regarding abortion access over cases involving religious liberty. ‘The DOJ’s brazen pursuit (and subsequent online promotion) of—at best—frivolous prosecutions in the abortion context, combined with its failure to list any prosecutions or enforcement activities in the religious worship context, gives the distinct impression of a warped and biased enforcement of FACE by the DOJ,’ the senators wrote.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 3/29/16]
September 2016: Cruz And Lee Sent Letter To AG Lynch Over What They Called Lopsided Enforcement Of The FACE Act, Said There Was No Mechanism For Tracking Violations Of Religious Liberty. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today demanded answers from Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the Department of Justices (DOJ) lopsided enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 and the agencys apparent favoritism toward abortion access cases over religious liberty cases. Cruz and Lee first sent a letter to Attorney General Lynch raising these concerns in March and received an inadequate response in June. It is not the DOJs prerogative to decide which laws merit enforcement and which ones merit no enforcement at all, Cruz and Lee wrote today. Based on the facts presented in our initial letter, and the troubling facts disclosed (and not disclosed) in the response, it appears that abortion is being given much higher priority than religious freedom by the DOJ without any justification In short, it would appear the DOJs process for tracking violations of religious liberty is either woefully inadequate or purposefully biased.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 9/27/16]
¶ Cruz Has Pushed For Abortion Restrictions In The District Of Columbia
¶ Cruz Opposed D.C. Council Legislation That Expanded The Definition of Discrimination To Include An Employee’s Reproductive Health Decisions
Cruz Introduced A Resolution Of Disapproval That Would Overturn Two Pieces Of Legislation The D.C. Council Passed Earlier In 2015 – The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act And The Human Rights Amendment Act. According to the Daily Signal, “On Wednesday, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and James Lankford, R-Okla., introduced resolutions of disapproval that, if passed by Congress and signed by the president, would effectively overturn two bad pieces of legislation passed by the D.C. Council earlier this year. In January, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed two euphemistically titled bills: the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Amendment Act. The former could force employers in the nation’s capital to cover elective, surgical abortions in their health plans and require pro-life organizations to hire individuals who advocate for abortion. The latter could force Christian schools to violate their beliefs about human sexuality and recognize an LGBT student group or host a ‘gay pride’ day on campus.” [Daily Signal, 3/18/15]
- Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act Broadened The Definition Of Discrimination In The District To Include An Employee’s Reproductive Health Decisions. According to the Washington Post, “The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act broadens the definition of discrimination in the District to include an employee’s reproductive health decisions. Under the law, employers will not be able to discriminate against employees who seek contraception or family planning services. Employers also cannot act against an employee when they know she has used medical treatments to initiate or terminate a pregnancy.” [Washington Post, 4/30/15]
¶ Cruz Claimed The Legislation Violated Religious Freedom
Cruz Claimed D.C.’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act And Human Rights Amendment Act Violated Religious Freedom. According the Roll Call, “Influential Catholic leaders sent a letter to senators Friday urging them to support Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and James Lankford of Oklahoma’s effort to block two D.C. bills. This week Cruz introduced two joint resolutions of disapproval, with Lankford as a co-sponsor, aimed at striking down the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. government approved in January. The senators say the bills violate religious freedom, and the Catholic leaders agree.” [Roll Call, 3/20/15]
Cruz Urged Congress To Formally Disapprove Of The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act And The Human Rights Amendment Act.. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement urging Congress to formally disapprove of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA) and the Human Rights Amendment Act (HRAA) recently passed by the District of Columbia in order to protect First Amendment rights for D.C. citizens. ‘The D.C. Council has proposed two measures that trample the very rights the First Amendment was designed to protect - the right of citizens to freely practice their faith,’ Sen. Cruz said. ‘The Constitution gives Congress the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the District of Columbia ‘in all cases whatsoever.’ And both the House and Senate have a constitutional duty to protect citizens’ religious liberty, as enshrined in the First Amendment.” [Sen. Cruz Press Release, 5/1/15]
¶ Cruz Supported Anti-Abortion Protesters Penalized For Breaking COVID Guidance
¶ Cruz Supported Anti-Abortion Protesters Amid Arrests For Violating COVID Restrictions
Cruz Objected To Arrest Of Anti-Abortion Protesters Under COVID Mass Gatherings Ban, Calling The Action Unconstitutional. According to the Charlotte Observer, “Police on Saturday charged eight Charlotte abortion protesters with violating North Carolina's COVID-19-related ban on mass gatherings. The arrests went national late Saturday when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas criticized Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police. ‘This is an unconstitutional arrest,’ Cruz, a runner-up for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2016 election, tweeted. ‘@BenhamBrothers exercising core First Amendment rights. PEACEFULLY. In a way fully consistent w/ public safety. Because elected Dems are pro-abortion, they are abusing their power--in a one-sided way--to silence pregnancy counselors.’” [Charlotte Observer, 4/4/20]
Police Reports Indicated The Group Had Not Left Following A Request, While The Health Center Director Noted The Protests Did Not Involve Social Distancing Or Masking. According to the Charlotte Observer, “Police on Saturday charged eight Charlotte abortion protesters with violating North Carolina's COVID-19-related ban on mass gatherings. […] That size crowd violates the mass gatherings provision in the state's stay-at-home order, police said, so officers asked everyone to leave. ‘After an initial request for compliance, 12 people who were in violation refused to leave’ and were cited under state law for violation of emergency prohibitions and restrictions, according to a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department news release. […] Several days before Saturday's arrests, Calla Hales, executive director of the clinic, told the Observer in an interview that protesters continued to show up at the Latrobe location despite increasing restrictions on gatherings during the March. Calling it ‘a public health nightmare,’ Hales said the protesters were not following social distancing during previous protests, and did not wear gloves or masks when they approached patients coming into the clinic to speak with them, distribute literature and to try to convince them not to have an abortion.” [Charlotte Observer, 4/4/20]
¶ Cruz’s Claims Earned Criticism From Charlotte Observer Editorial Board
Charlotte Observer Editorial: Cruz Claims Over Anti-Choice Protesters And COVID Guidance Was “Dangerously And Shamelessly Wrong.” According to an editorial from the Charlotte Observer, “Constitutional freedoms, including speech, are not absolute. They're weighted against public health and safety considerations, and courts have long had no problem with restrictions like those in North Carolina and other states so long as they are applied and enforced evenly and are justified by the public interest. Last month, a New Hampshire court ruled that a coronavirus-related ban on gatherings was a permissible restriction on free assembly. Cruz, who graduated from Harvard Law School, should know this. It's pretty likely he does know this. His support of the abortion protesters was a political pantomime, not a serious legal opinion. It was a cheap play for fist pumps, but it comes with a cost. By declaring that people can violate public health restrictions if they feel strongly about something, Cruz dilutes those orders in Charlotte and everywhere else. […] Contrary messages only encourage those who believe - despite case counts and death tolls rising - that the COVID-19 crisis is overblown or that no one will be hurt by their individual flouting of public health guidelines. They're wrong. The Charlotte protesters, by ignoring what's best for themselves and others, were wrong. Ted Cruz, by giving their protest his Senate stamp of approval, was dangerously and shamelessly wrong. He should correct himself now.” [Charlotte Observer, Editorial, 4/4/20]
¶ Cruz Supported Restrictions On Abortion Facilities
¶ Cruz Supported Texas’ HB2 Law, Instituting Restrictions On Facilities
Cruz Joined Congressional Effort In Support Of Texas’ HB2 Law. According to a press release from Sen. Cornyn, “Today, U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), along with U.S. Representatives Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Pete Olson (R-TX), and Lamar Smith (R-TX), led a broad Congressional coalition filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas HB 2, which establishes standards for abortion providers and facilities. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt later this Spring. Sen. Cruz: ‘Those who advocate for abortion often claim that it should be 'safe, legal, and rare.' Unfortunately, abortion is not always 'safe' for women. Not long ago, we saw just how dangerous an unscrupulous abortionist can be. Kermit Gosnell, who ran a Philadelphia abortion mill, treated his women patients little better than the unborn babies he slaughtered. […] Today, a bipartisan group of 174 members of Congress have filed an amicus brief in defense of the right of legislatures across the country to enact medical protections for women.” [Sen. Cornyn, Press Release, 2/6/16]
- The Law, Which Was Struck Down By The Supreme Court, Required Abortion Providers To Have Admitting Privileges At A Nearby Hospital And Required Health Centers Providing Abortion To Have Surgical Facilities. According to NPR News, “The Supreme Court has overturned a Texas law requiring clinics that provide abortions to have surgical facilities and doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The law was predicted to close many clinics and further reduce availability of abortion in Texas; the court has ruled the law violated the Constitution.” [NPR News, 6/27/16]
¶ The Law Would Have Shuttered Health Care Centers Providing Abortion Across Texas, And Required Nearly 900,000 To Drive More Than 300 Miles To Seek Abortion Care
If The Supreme Court Had Upheld The Law, Health Centers Would Have Been Forced To Close And Hundreds Of Thousands Would Have Been Left Without A Health Center For More Than 300 Miles. According to NPR News, “If the Supreme Court agrees with the 5th Circuit decision and upholds the Texas law, the number of clinics in the state would drop from the 40 that existed when the law was passed to nine or 10. That would leave some 900,000 women of childbearing age to drive more than 300 miles round-trip to get an abortion.” [NPR News, 11/13/15]
¶ Cruz Supported Federal Legislation Impacting Abortion Practices
¶ Cruz Introduced The Dignity For Aborted Children Act
Cruz Introduced The Dignity For Aborted Children Act, Creating Guidelines For Handling Of Aborted Fetal Remains. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) in introducing the Dignity for Aborted Children Act, a bill which would enforce guidelines for the dignified handling of aborted fetal remains and penalties for failing to respect the sanctity of human life. Read the full text of their bill here. ‘Harvesting the remains of murdered unborn babies is despicable,’ Sen. Cruz said. ‘Every unborn child is a precious gift from God and we must respect the sanctity of life. I am proud to co-sponsor this bill to establish and enforce guidelines for handling aborted fetal remains in a dignified way.’” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 10/1/19]
- Dignity For Aborted Children Act Was Supported By Susan B. Anthony List, March For Life, Family Research Council, Among Others. According to a press release from Sen. Cruz, “The Dignity for Abortion Children Act has been endorsed by the following organizations: Susan B. Anthony List March for Life The Family Research Council National Right to Life Concerned Women for America.” [Sen. Cruz, Press Release, 10/1/19]
¶ Cruz Wanted Congress To Act On “Partial Birth Abortion” And The “Outer Extreme” Of Abortion Practices
¶ Cruz Emphasized That Abortion Was A “Question For The Voters” But Called For Federal Restrictions “For The Outer Extreme”
[AUDIO] Cruz Advocated For Federal Legislation “Banning Some Of The Most Horrific Practices That Are Really Beyond The Pale And Beyond The Conscience For The Overwhelming Majority Of Americans.” “HOST: So basically, you think Republicans, I'm just thinking about Republicans now will fall in behind Mr. Trump's view that the states should decide, as per the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court? CRUZ: Well, listen. I've been saying a long time. It's a question for the voters and it's going to be decided primarily at the state level, that there is a place on the federal level for the outer extreme. So, for example, I and many others have voted in favor of banning partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortion, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support. And at the extremes, Congress may act, but in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to move any legislation. So, the only legislation that's going to get enacted federally is something that could command 60 votes, which means, other than the extremes, it is going to stay at the state level, state by state, other than banning some of the most horrific practices that are really beyond the pale and beyond the conscience for the overwhelming majority of Americans.” [Kudlow, 4/10/24]
¶ Cruz Embraced Extremist Who Had Praised Execution Of Abortion Providers In 2016 Campaign
¶ November 2015: Cruz Was Endorsed By Troy Newman
Troy Newman Endorsed Cruz’s 2016 Presidential Bid. According to a press release Cruz’s campaign, “Today, Presidential candidate Ted Cruz secured the endorsement of leading pro-life activist Troy Newman– a driving force in the recent effort to expose Planned Parenthood’s alleged sale of baby parts in a series of undercover videos. Newman is the President of Operation Rescue, one of the most prominent pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. He also serves as a Board Member for a number of pro-life groups including the Center for Medical Progress. In addition, Troy is the author of several books, including Refocusing the Pro-Life Movement for Victory and Abortion Free.” [ Cruz Campaign, Press Release, 11/19/15]
¶ Cruz Praised Newman’s Anti-Abortion Advocacy
Cruz Said Newman Worked “Tirelessly Every Day For The Pro-Life Cause.” According to a press release from Cruz’s campaign, “‘I am grateful to receive the endorsement of Troy Newman,’ Cruz said. ‘He has served as a voice for the unborn for over 25 years, and works tirelessly every day for the pro-life cause.’” [Cruz Campaign, Press Release, 11/19/15]
¶ Cruz Said We Needed “Leaders Like Troy Newman"
Cruz: “We Need Leaders Like Troy Newman In This Country Who Will Stand Up For Those Who Do Not Have A Voice.” According to a press release from Cruz’s campaign, “‘We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country who will stand up for those who do not have a voice.’” [Cruz Campaign, Press Release, 11/19/15]
¶ Newman Supported Executing Abortion Providers
Newman Supported Executing Doctors That Performed Abortions. In Their Blood Cries Out, Newman wrote, “When moms, dads, abortionists are added together, well over 100,000,000 people bear personal bloodguilt for at least one abortion. The doctrine of community bloodguilt found in Scripture further implicates the entire nation. The perpetrators are far too numerous and the bloodguilt has spread too far. We deserve God’s judgment. In addition to our personal guilt in abortion, the United States government has abrogated its responsibility to properly deal with the blood-guilty. This responsibility rightly involves executing convicted murderers, including abortionists, for their crimes in order to expunge bloodguilt from the land and people. Instead, the act of abortion has been elevated to a ‘God-given right’ and the abortionists canonized as saints. Consequently, the entire nation has the blood-red stain of the lives of the innocent upon its head. The innocent blood of the New Covenant in Christ has the power to atone for all the innocent bloodshed from the beginning of time to the end, and to purify the whole earth - the land. Rejecting that innocent blood is to reject the only standard that is effective against innocent bloodshed, excluding the lawful execution of the murderers, which is commanded by God in Scripture.” [Troy Newman, Their Blood Cries Out, 1997 via Right Wing Watch]
¶ Newman Was The President Of Operation Rescue West, An Anti-Abortion Group With Ties To Murderers Of Abortion Providers
1999: Newman Became President Of Operation Rescue West. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Years ago, Randall Terry and Troy Newman were brothers in arms in the struggle against legal abortion. ‘Troy was my son in the movement,’ said Terry, 50, a onetime used-car salesman from upstate New York who founded Operation Rescue in 1986. Terry rose to fame leading clinic blockades until lawsuits, jail terms and finally a stunning 1998 legal settlement forced him to abandon his militant tactics, and he faded from the forefront of the struggle. Newman, meanwhile, was an up-and-coming activist in San Diego and a spokesman for Operation Rescue there. He admired Terry’s energy, charisma and rhetoric. ‘Randall was the first guy to say, ‘If abortion is murder, then act like it,’ said Newman, now 43, who became president of Operation Rescue West in 1999.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/26/09]
¶ Newman’s Operation Rescue Ran A Campaign of Harassment Against Dr. Tiller
Operation Rescue “Ran The Multi-Decade Harassment Campaign Of Dr. George Tiller.” According to The Nation, “A ‘initial registration form’ for CMP (viewable here), filed with the Office of the California attorney general in 2013, lists three board members: David Daleiden, Albin Rhomberg, and Troy Newman. Newman, who is listed as the group’s secretary, is the president of Operation Rescue, a pro-life group that ran the multi-decade harassment campaign of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, a campaign that only ended when Scott Roeder, who was an active part of Operation Rescue activities in Wichita, murdered Tiller in his church in 2009.” [The Nation, 7/16/15]
¶ Dr. Tiller’s Murderer Was An Active Participant In Operation Rescue
Scott Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s Murderer, Was “An Active Part” Of Operation Rescue. According to The Nation, “A ‘initial registration form’ for CMP (viewable here), filed with the Office of the California attorney general in 2013, lists three board members: David Daleiden, Albin Rhomberg, and Troy Newman. Newman, who is listed as the group’s secretary, is the president of Operation Rescue, a pro-life group that ran the multi-decade harassment campaign of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, a campaign that only ended when Scott Roeder, who was an active part of Operation Rescue activities in Wichita, murdered Tiller in his church in 2009.” [The Nation, 7/16/15]
¶ Dr. Tiller’s Murderer Said Newman Told Him Tiller’s Death Could Be Justified
Roeder Said Newman Told Him Tiller’s Murder May Be Justified. According to Ms. Magazine, “Roeder first stalked Tiller at his Wichita church, Reformation Lutheran, in 2002, the year Operation Rescue moved there. Operation Rescue had already begun demonstrating at the church, and on the group’s website Newman had announced plans to gather at Tiller’s clinic, church and home. Also that year, Roeder says he went to lunch with Newman and asked him about using violence to stop abortion. Robb: What did you say to him? Roeder: Oh, something like if an abortionist—I don’t even know if it was specifically Tiller…was shot, would it be justified? … And [Newman] said, ‘If it were, it wouldn’t upset me.’” [Ms. Magazine, Spring 2010]
¶ Operation Rescue Argued That The Murder Of A Doctor In Florida Could Have Been Legally Justified
Operation Rescue Claimed The Murder Of A Doctor And His Bodyguard In Florida By Paul Hill May Have Been “Legally Justified And Permissible Under The Law.” According to a press release from Operation Rescue West and California Life Coalition, “Paul Jennings Hill is scheduled to die by lethal injection today in the state of Florida for the murder of a Pensacola abortionist and his security guard in 1994. The following is a joint statement released by Operation Rescue West and the California Life Coalition regarding today’s execution: ‘Today’s scheduled execution of Paul Hill is not justice, but is another example of the judicial tyranny that is gripping our nation. A Florida judge denied Rev. Hill his right to present a defense that claimed that the killing of the abortionist was necessary to save the lives of the pre-born babies that were scheduled to be killed by abortion that day. Our system of justice is based upon ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ but in Rev. Hill’s case, there was no justice because the court prevented him from presenting the legal defense that his conduct was justifiable defensive action. ‘There are many examples where taking the life in defense of innocent human beings is legally justified and permissible under the law. Paul Hill should have been given the opportunity to defend himself with the defense of his choosing in a court of law.” [Operation Rescue West and California Life Coalition, 9/3/03 via archive.org]
¶ Operation Rescue Endorsed Cruz’s Re-Election In 2018 Senate Run
Operation Rescue And Troy Newman “Wholeheartedly Endorse Ted Cruz For Senate” In 2018 Race. According to a press release from Operation Rescue, “In the wake of the confirmation battle over Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it is more apparent than ever that we need solid, pro-life Republicans in the Senate to bolster our meager majority. Republicans must gain seats in this Mid-Term Election and cannot afford to lose any to the radical pro-abortion Democrats, especially when it comes to the seat occupied by pro-life stalwart Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. […] ‘Ted Cruz is a man that will continue to speak out and work in defense of the innocent, whether it be a baby in the womb or a man falsely accused,’ said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, who also served as a founding board member for the Center for Medical Progress. ‘He is a man of integrity who is badly needed in the Senate, especially during these perilous times when the future direction of our nation hangs in the balance. I wholeheartedly endorse Ted Cruz for Senate.’” [Operation Rescue, Press Release, 10/10/18]
¶ Cruz Supported Personhood Amendments
¶ Cruz Supported Personhood Amendments
August 2015: Cruz Signed Georgia Right To Life PAC’s Personhood Affirmation. According to Georgia Right to Life PAC, “Today, Texas US Senator Ted Cruz received a ringing endorsement from Georgia’s largest pro-life organization. ‘Senator Cruz has an unblemished record of standing up for innocent life,’ said Ricardo Davis, Director of Georgia Right to Life’s Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC). ‘Recent revelations about the horrors of the abortion cartel cry out for a principled fighter like Senator Cruz.’ Senator Cruz received the endorsement after reviewing his activities supporting personhood and receiving his signed GRTL PAC Personhood Affirmation, which asks that candidates support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every innocent human being, from earliest biological beginning until natural death.” [Press release- Georgia Right to Life PAC, 8/8/15]
- Cruz Pledged To Support Personhood Legislation. According to Georgia Right to Life PAC, “Today, Texas US Senator Ted Cruz received a ringing endorsement from Georgia’s largest pro-life organization. ‘Senator Cruz has an unblemished record of standing up for innocent life,’ said Ricardo Davis, Director of Georgia Right to Life’s Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC). ‘Recent revelations about the horrors of the abortion cartel cry out for a principled fighter like Senator Cruz.’ Senator Cruz received the endorsement after reviewing his activities supporting personhood and receiving his signed GRTL PAC Personhood Affirmation, which asks that candidates support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would guarantee a constitutional right to life for every innocent human being, from earliest biological beginning until natural death.” [Press release- Georgia Right to Life PAC, 8/8/15]
¶ Life At Conception Act
2012: Cruz Pledged To Co-Sponsor The Life At Conception Act. According to a press release from the National Pro-Life Alliance, “But shortly before the primary, one of his opponents, Ted Cruz began a surge, denying Dewhurst the easy victory he had been planning on, turning the race into a runoff. In making that surge, Mr. Cruz took a bold stance on several issues, but most importantly to National Pro-Life Alliance members he pledged if elected to cosponsor the Life at Conception Act.” [National Pro-Life Alliance, 9/4/12]
Cruz Supported The Life At Conception Act. According to Pro Life Alliance, “With the general election now past, come January several newly elected pro-life champions will be joining the fight on Capitol Hill for a Life at Conception Act. One of those champions will be Ted Cruz from Texas whose strong support for the Life at Conception Act contributed to his success.” [Pro Life Alliance, 11/9/12]
- Legislation Declared The Unborn To Be “Persons.” According to the Pro Life Alliance, “A Life at Conception Act - as introduced in the 113th Congress by Congressman Jim Jordan (H.R. 1091) and in the Senate by Senator Rand Paul (S. 583) - is legislation that, quite simply, would declare the unborn to be ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore entitled to the right to life guaranteed therein.” [Pro Life Alliance, Accessed 8/15/14]
¶ Personhood Could Ban Some Types Of Birth Control And In-Vitro Fertilization
New York Times: Personhood Amendments “Would Essentially Deem Abortion And Some Types Of Birth Control Murder.” According to the New York Times, “The Democratic offensive is built around statements by Mr. Romney that some have linked to a proposed constitutional amendment in Mississippi, which among other things would effectively make illegal certain types of birth control. Under the measure, known as a ‘personhood’ amendment, a fertilized human egg would be declared to be a legal person. The amendment, which would essentially deem abortion and some types of birth control murder, represents perhaps the furthest front in the anti-abortion movement.” [New York Times, 11/3/11]
American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists: So Called “Personhood” Legislation Could Abolish Regular Forms Of Birth Control Like The IUD And The Common, Everyday Birth Control Pill. According to a statement from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Although the individual wording in these proposed measures varies from state to state, they all attempt to give full legal rights to a fertilized egg by defining ‘personhood’ from the moment of fertilization, before conception (ie, pregnancy/ implantation) has occurred. This would have wide-reaching harmful implications for the practice of medicine and on women’s access to contraception, fertility treatments, pregnancy termination, and other essential medical procedures. These ‘personhood’ proposals, as acknowledged by proponents, would make condoms, natural family planning, and spermicides the only legally allowed forms of birth control. Thus, some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception, such as oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and other forms of FDA-approved hormonal contraceptives could be banned in states that adopt ‘personhood’ measures. Women’s very lives would be jeopardized if physicians were prohibited from terminating life-threatening ectopic and molar pregnancies. Women who experience pregnancy loss or other negative pregnancy outcomes could be prosecuted in some cases.” [ACOG, 2/10/12]
Personhood Amendments, Which Aimed To Define A Fertilized Embryo As A Person, Could Make Forms Of Birth Control, Like The Common, Everyday Birth Control Pill, Illegal Because They Prevent Implantation Of A Fertilized Egg. According to Salon, “But [Mississippi’s] Initiative 26, which would change the definition of ‘person’ in the Mississippi state Constitution to ‘include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof,’ is more than just an absolute ban on abortion and a barely veiled shot at Roe v. Wade — although it is both. By its own logic, the initiative would almost certainly ban common forms of birth control like the IUD and the morning-after pill, call into question the legality of the common birth-control pill, and even open the door to investigating women who have suffered miscarriages. … [T]he Personhood movement hopes to do nothing less than reclassify everyday, routine birth control as abortion. The medical definition of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterine wall. If this initiative passes, and fertilized eggs on their own have full legal rights, anything that could potentially block that implantation – something a woman’s body does naturally all the time – could be considered murder. Scientists say hormonal birth-control pills and the morning-after pill work primarily by preventing fertilization in the first place, but the outside possibility, never documented, that an egg could be fertilized anyway and blocked is enough for some pro-lifers.” [Salon, 10/26/11]
¶ Cruz Refused To Say Whether He Would Push For Personhood Legislation As President
Cruz Refused To Say If He Would Support So-Called Personhood Bills, Saying That He Did Not Want To “Go Back And Forth On Labels.” According to Politico, “Ted Cruz refused to say if he would support so-called personhood bills in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, according to a partial transcript released by the network ahead of Thursday’s broadcast. Pointing to the Texas senator’s past history of wavering before eventually signing a pledge promising to support a personhood amendment to the Constitution in 2015, Todd asked, ‘Where are you on personhood? Are you going to pursue this as an agenda or are you just simply supporting the idea? Do you know what I mean by the difference?’ ‘Well listen, some of the labels in this debate can get confusing because different people mean different things about labels. I don’t want to get in a back and forth on labels,’ Cruz responded. ‘I believe every human life is a gift from God and we should cherish and protect and celebrate them.’” [Politico, 4/14/16]
Cruz: Refused To Say Whether He Would Support Personhood Legislation, Stating Instead “I Believe Every Human Life Is A Gift From God And We Should Cherish And Protect.” While appearing on MSNBC Town Hall, Ted Cruz said, “TODD: All right. Very quickly, you brought up abortion. You’ve been on both sides of the personhood issue. You were hesitant to support it and then you did sign a pledge saying that you did want to (inaudible). Personhood is this idea that the minute -- the minute of conception, essentially, that the fetus has... (APPLAUSE) TODD: That’s a divisive issue and it gets into some contraception disputes. Where are you on personhood? Are you going to pursue this as an agenda item or are you just simply supporting the idea? Do you know what I mean by the difference? CRUZ: Well listen, some of the labels in this debate can get confusing because different people mean different things by labels. And so I don’t want to get in a back and forth on labels. I believe every human life is a gift from God and we should cherish and protect...” [MSNBC, 4/14/16]
¶ Cruz Stated He Was Not Interested In Banning In-Vitro Fertilization
Cruz: “I’m Not Interested In Anything That Restricts In-Vitro Fertilization.” While appearing on MSNBC Town Hall, Cruz said, “CRUZ: I told you, I’m not going to get into the labels. But what I will say is that we should protect life, but I’m not interested in anything that restricts birth control, and I’m not interested in anything that restricts in-vitro fertilization, because I think parents who are struggling to create life, to have a child, that is a wonderful thing.” [MSNBC, 4/14/16]
¶ Cruz Advocated For An Alabama Supreme Court Ruling That Limited Access To In-Vitro Fertilization While Claiming To Support The Procedure
¶ March 2024: Cruz Pronounced His Support For In-Vitro Fertilization And Downplayed Threats That The Procedure Was Under attack After An Alabama Supreme Court Ruling On Frozen Embryo Personhood
¶ Cruz Declared His Support For In-Vitro Fertilization On Twitter And Told His Followers That The Procedure Was “Protected Under Law, And It Will Remain That Way”
Cruz Tweeted In Support Of In-Vitro Fertilization And Declared That “No One Is Taking IVF Away.” Senator Ted Cruz tweeted, “I support IVF. It is protected under law, and it will remain that way. No one is taking IVF away — but Senate Democrats know that their radical stances on abortion are far outside of the mainstream, which is why they are resorting to scaremongering regarding the availability of IVF. IVF has been a blessing for countless families and it’s not going anywhere.” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 3/20/24]
¶ Cruz Defended The Alabama Supreme Court Decision Granting Personhood To Embryos And Misconstrued The Facts Of The Case
[VIDEO] Cruz Defended Access To In-Vitro Fertilization And Claimed That The Alabama Supreme Court's Recent Decision Was Actually “In Defense Of Preserving I.V.F.” “I.V.F. is fully protected in law. It should be fully protected in law, and it will remain 100% fully protected in law. Every Democrat knows that. Out of 100 senators, 100 senators in this body support I.V.F. treatments. I strongly support I.V.F. treatments. In fact, the state of Texas I.V.F. treatments are protected in law. And in fact, since 1987, Texas has mandated I.V.F. coverage for many group health insurance plans. The Democrats know this. So a lot of focus on the Alabama Supreme Court decision. The Alabama Supreme Court decision was not a decision striking down I.V.F. In fact, it was a case brought by parents seeking I.V.F. against a clinic that had negligently cared for the embryos. It was a decision in defense of preserving I.V.F. But a whole lot of partisan elected officials and a whole lot of partisans in the media immediately seized on that decision to say, ‘Aha! I.V.F. will be struck down?’ Well, I will say the state of Alabama acted promptly. Bright red, ruby red. Alabama acted promptly to say no. I.V.F. is protected.”[Judiciary Committee Hearing - Reproductive Freedoms, 3/20/24]
¶ February 2024: The Alabama Supreme Court Ruled That “Embryos Created And Stored In A Medical Facility Must Be Considered Children Under The State’s Law Governing Harmful Death”
¶ The State Supreme Court’s Ruling Invited “Strict New Regulations Over The Fertility Industry” And Created An Uncertain Future For “Millions Of Stored Frozen Embryos”
The New York Times Warned Readers That The Alabama Supreme Court’s Decision Could Have “A Chilling Effect On A Person Seeking To Have Children Through In Vitro Fertilization.” According to The New York Times, “The Alabama Supreme Court has opened a new front in the legal debate over when human life begins. Embryos created and stored in a medical facility must be considered children under the state’s law governing harmful death, the court ruled. [...] But the strongest and most immediate effect of the decision will be on fertility patients trying to get pregnant, not women seeking to end their pregnancies. The Alabama ruling invites states to enact strict new regulations over the fertility industry that could sharply limit the number of embryos created during a cycle of medical treatment and affect the future of millions of stored frozen embryos. A concurring opinion even offered road maps for such statutes. That could have a chilling effect on a person seeking to have children through in vitro fertilization, whether single or part of a same-sex or heterosexual couple.” [New York Times, 2/21/24]
¶ The University Of Alabama Paused Their Fertility Treatments After The State Supreme Court Decided That Frozen Embryos “Fell Squarely Under Alabama’s Definition Of Minors”
The State Supreme Court’s Decision Meant That Clinics Now Faced “Daunting New Liability Issues Surrounding The Handling Of Embryos.” According to The New York Times, “The ruling is actually somewhat narrow. It applies to three couples who had sued the Center for Reproductive Medicine, a fertility clinic in Mobile, for inadvertently destroying their embryos. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to punitive damages under Alabama’s 1872 Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. Two lower state courts disagreed, saying the embryos were neither people nor children. The State Supreme Court reversed those rulings, saying that the embryos fell squarely under Alabama’s definition of minors and that the negligence lawsuits could proceed. [...] On Wednesday, the I.V.F. clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham announced it was pausing fertility treatments to explore the implications of the court’s ruling on its patients and providers. One fear is that the clinic, doctors and even patients may face daunting new liability issues surrounding the handling of embryos. What will it mean for fertility patients and clinics? ‘The honest answer is that we don’t know for sure,’ said Dr. Paula Amato, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, an organization that lobbies on behalf of fertility experts and patients. ‘But the ruling is very concerning.’” [New York Times, 2/21/24]
¶ One Of The Justices Who Decided The Ruling Was A Cruz Delegate In 2016
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, Who Recently Decided The Controversial I.V.F. Ruling, Was A Cruz Delegate In 2016. According to American Journal News, “Tom Parker was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2004. He became the court’s chief justice in 2018. On Feb. 20, he concurred with the court’s ruling that frozen embryos should be afforded the same rights as babies and children. Several Alabama health providers have since halted IVF services for couples trying to conceive. ‘Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,’ Parker wrote in his opinion. He went on to cite the Book of Genesis as a basis for his ruling. In July 2016, Parker attended the Republican National Convention as a Cruz delegate. Parker later campaigned in Alabama for Donald Trump. Cruz has not yet commented on the Alabama court’s ruling, but he has supported personhood legislation that could impose similar restrictions. ” [American Journal News, 2/29/24]
¶ Cruz Supported Legislation Requiring Parental Notification For Minors Obtaining Abortions
¶ 2013: Cruz Voted For Legislation Requiring 24-Hours Parental Notification For Minors Seeking To Obtain Abortion
2013: Cruz Effectively Voted To Support Passing Rubio’s Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). In March 2013, Cruz effectively voted for a “sense of the Senate” amendment regarding the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) and calling for that bill’s passage. According to The Hill, “The Senate on Friday evening rejected a Republican amendment to the 2014 budget that calls for new criminal penalties for abortions performed on minors outside their home state. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the budget that encourages passage of his Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.” The vote was on a motion to waive a point of order raised against the amendment. According to The Hill, “Boxer raised a point of order against Rubio’s amendment, saying it was non-germane. Rubio asked for a waiver from Senate budget rules.” The Senate rejected the motion to waive the point of order by a vote of 48 to 51, killing the amendment. [Senate Vote 64, 3/22/13; The Hill, 3/22/13]
- CIANA Would Prohibit Transporting A Minor Across State Lines To Seek An Abortion And Would Require 24 Hours’ Parental Notice Before An Abortion Could Be Performed On A Minor. According to The Hill, “That bill makes it a crime to transport minors across state lines to obtain an abortion, and requires doctors to give 24 hours notice to parents before performing an abortion. It calls for fines of up to a year in prison for doctors who perform abortions on minors from outside the doctors’ home state without parental notification.” [The Hill, 3/22/13]
- CIANA Did Not Include Provisions To Protect The Health Of The Teenager Seeking The Abortion. According to a New York Times editorial, “In their zeal to force teenagers from troubled homes to bear children against their will, the measure’s sponsors included no exception to protect a teenager’s health. That is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent and fundamental decency. It is also in keeping with the rest of the right-wing agenda on contraception and abortion.” [Editorial, New York Times, 3/13/12]
¶ 2005: Cruz Filed A Friend Of The Court Brief For A New Hampshire Parental Notification Law
November 2005: Cruz Filed A Friend Of The Court Brief In Support of A New Hampshire Parental Notification Law That Did Not Include Exceptions For The Life Of The Mother. According to the Brandenton Herald, ‘The enduring national debate regarding abortion continues at the U.S. Supreme Court today with two cases, though neither directly challenges the constitutional right articulated in Roe vs. Wade 32 years ago. One case involves a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification before a minor can undergo an abortion. […] The question in New Hampshire is whether that state’s law is too restrictive. A meticulous notification process doesn’t allow physicians enough latitude to perform emergency abortions to protect a young woman’s health, critics say. ‘The case is not about whether states may require a parent’s involvement. The Supreme Court has said that states can do so,’ said Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion rights group. ‘The case is about whether these laws must allow physicians to protect their patients’ health by acting immediately in an emergency.’ But the case is also about the standard by which New Hampshire’s notification statute was judged unconstitutional. A federal appeals court declared the New Hampshire law unconstitutional in 2003, citing the statute’s lack of a ‘health exception’ to its stringent notification rules. The state requires physicians - under threat of criminal sanctions - to notify at least one parent or wait for a court order before proceeding with an abortion on a minor. The only medical exception is one involving life or death. Normally, when an entire law is thrown out, it’s because there is no circumstance in which the law is constitutional. New Hampshire and the other states say the lower court ignored that in its ruling. In a ‘friend of the court’ brief filed on behalf of 18 states, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz said the New Hampshire law had been declared unconstitutional based on only a ‘large fraction’ of circumstances - even those theoretical - where notification might be burdensome to a pregnant minor.’ [Brandenton Herald, 11/30/05]
¶ 2003: New Hampshire Passed A Parental Notification Law That Was Considered “The Strictest In The Nation”
New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Passed In 2003 And Required Doctors To Notify A Pregnant Teenager’s Parents Before Performing An Abortion. According to Seacoast Online, “Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged a law requiring teenagers to notify parents before getting an abortion. They successfully proved it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain an exception in the case where a pregnant woman’s life was in danger. The law was passed in 2003 and repealed in 2007, making the lawsuit moot. In the interim, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was able to obtain an injunction that kept the law from ever being enforced.” [Seacoast Online, 9/4/08]
- New York Times: 2003 New Hampshire Parental Notification Law Was Considered “The Strictest In The Nation.” According to the New York Times, “New Hampshire will become the first state to repeal a law requiring teenage girls to notify their parents before having an abortion, under a bill that won final passage in the State Senate on Thursday. Gov. John Lynch has said he would sign the measure. The vote in the Senate was 15 to 9. The House vote, in March, was 217 to 141. The parental notification law was the strictest in the nation when it was passed in 2003. The vote to repeal it reflects, in part, a sea change in New Hampshire politics since the 2006 elections, which swept a Democratic majority into the legislature for the first time in over a century.” [New York Times, 6/8/07]
New Hampshire Parental Notification Law Imposed A 48-Hour Waiting Period After Parents Received Notice, With An Exception For An Immediate Threat To The Teenager’s Life. According to the New York Times, “New Hampshire imposes a 48-hour waiting period after the required notice is given to at least one parent. And, as do all states with parental-notification laws, it provides an exception for conditions that present an immediate threat to a pregnant teen-ager’s life.” [New York Times, 11/30/05]
New Hampshire Did Not Provide Abortion Exceptions For Non-Life-Threatening Medical Emergencies. According to the New York Times, “But New Hampshire is one of only five states that do not also provide an exception for medical emergencies that are not life-threatening - a danger that without an abortion a teen-ager may lose, for example, her ability to conceive in the future. The absence of that exception for nonlethal health emergencies prompted a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, to declare the New Hampshire law unconstitutional.” [New York Times, 11/30/05]
¶ 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Called New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Constitutionally Flawed And Sent It Back To Lower Courts For Reconsideration
¶ Supreme Court Ordered Lower Court To Consider Adding A Health Exception Or Risk Losing The Bill In Its Entirety
January 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Ruled That While States Had The Authority To Adopt Parental Notification Laws, New Hampshire’s Law Regarding The Health Of The Mother Was “Constitutionally Flawed.” According to the Nashua Telegraph, “Jan. 8, 2006: U.S. Supreme Court rules states have the authority to adopt parental notification laws but an exception in N.H.’s law regarding the health of the mother is constitutionally flawed. The justices order the case back to the lower court for further review.” [Nashua Telegraph, 9/3/10]
January 2006: U.S. Supreme Court Ordered The 1st Circuit Court Of Appeals In Boston To Consider Including A Health Exception Or Risk Striking The Bill Altogether. According to New Hampshire Public Radio, “In its ten page opinion, the court chastised lower courts for throwing out the entire statute rather than offering a health exception remedy. And the Supreme Court is ordering the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to come up with a solution. It’s directing the Boston court to consider one key question: would the legislature prefer the bill with a health exception, or no bill at all.” [New Hampshire Public Radio, 1/18/06]
January 2006: In Its Ruling Remanding The Parental Notification Law, The Supreme Court Instructed The District Court To Determine The Legislative Intent Of A Health Exception. According to the Union Leader, “In its ruling on New Hampshire's parental notification law eight days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court told the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to figure out if the Legislature would have preferred no notification law at all to a law that could not constitutionally be enforced when pregnant minors face medical emergencies. The court noted it is unconstitutional for a parental notification law to have no health exception at all. It told the lower court to determine the ‘legislative intent’ on the delicate health exception question.” [Union Leader, 1/26/06]
- The Supreme Court Remanded The Parental Notification Law To The District Court With Instructions To Remedy The Law’s Lack Of A Health Exception. According to the Boston Globe, “The Supreme Court declined yesterday to strike down a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify a parent before seeking an abortion, ruling that an appeals court should not have nullified the entire law in 2004 simply because it did not contain an exception for cases in which a girl's health was at risk. In a rare unanimous opinion in an abortion case, the Supreme Court ordered the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, to reconsider its ‘blunt’ ruling that the entire New Hampshire law was unconstitutional. The lower court should look for a more ‘modest’ way to remedy the law's lack of a health exception, it said.” [Boston Globe, 1/19/06]
¶ Judge Paused Review Of Case While Legislature Reviewed Law
2007: Federal Judge Placed Hold On Legal Challenge To NH Parental Notification Law To Allow For Legislative Review. According to the Union Leader, “A federal judge has put a temporary halt to a legal challenge of the state's parental notification law, giving New Hampshire lawmakers time to rewrite the law or gut it all together. In an order issued yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph A. DeClerico Jr. said the action of the New Hampshire Legislature could have a direct affect [sic] on the court challenge and may render it moot. […] ‘I view it (the order) as neutral,’ said New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte said her office and Planned Parenthood have both filed requests for summary judgment in the case. A response from Planned Parenthood was pending when DeClerico issued his order, Ayotte said. Ayotte said she will not testify on the repeal legislation, believing her duty is to defend the law as enacted by the Legislature.” [Union Leader, 2/2/07]
¶ 2007: New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Repealed
New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law Was Repealed In 2007. According to Seacoast Online, “Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged a law requiring teenagers to notify parents before getting an abortion. They successfully proved it was unconstitutional because it didn’t contain an exception in the case where a pregnant woman’s life was in danger. The law was passed in 2003 and repealed in 2007, making the lawsuit moot. In the interim, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England was able to obtain an injunction that kept the law from ever being enforced.” [Seacoast Online, 9/4/08]
¶ Cruz Fought Against Abortion Coverage In Veteran’s Health Care
¶ Cruz Opposed Efforts To Allow The VA To Offer Abortion Care
Cruz Joined Effort To Oppose Proposed Rule That Would Allow VA Health Clinics To Offer Abortions. According to a press release from Sen. Lankford, “Senator James Lankford (R-OK) was joined by 12 Republican Senators and 26 members of the House of Representatives to file a public comment letter expressing strong opposition to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) interim final rule (IFR) that illegally allows abortions to be offered by the VA. The Members cite that the rule directly violates the VA’s explicit statutory prohibition on abortion that has governed the VA for 30 years. The letter calls on Secretary of VA Denis McDonough to promptly rescind the rule. Lankford was joined in sending the letter by Senators […]Ted Cruz (R-TX)[.]” [Sen. Lankford, Press Release, 10/12/22]
Cruz: “The VA Does Not Have The Power To Ignore The Law And Impose Its Own Pro-Abortion Policies.” According to Cruz’s official Twitter, “Congress writes laws, the executive branch enforces them. The VA does not have the power to ignore the law and impose its own pro-abortion policies. I am proud to stand with my colleagues to protect the rights of the unborn.” [Twitter, @SenTedCruz, 10/13/22]
¶ Cruz Said The “War On Women” Was Made Up, Said Women Were Victims Of Abortion
¶ Cruz Called The “War On Women” “Made Up Nonsense”
Cruz Said There Was No “War On Women” Because He Never Met “One Single Person Who Wanted To Ban Birth Control.” According to A Time For Truth, “I often reflect on the challenges my mother confronted, especially whenever Democratic political operatives and their media allies spin the notion that Republican officeholders somehow have waged a ‘war on women.’ It’s a made-up attack, poll-tested to try to scare single women into thinking that politicians want to take away their birth control. The attack is nonsense, designed to distract the voters. The alleged threat simply doesn’t exist. I’ve been around conservatives all my life, and I’ve never encountered a single person who wanted to ban birth control.” [Ted Cruz, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America, 6/30/15]
- Cruz: “The Alleged Threat” Of Banning Birth Control “Simply Doesn’t Exist.” According to A Time For Truth, “I often reflect on the challenges my mother confronted, especially whenever Democratic political operatives and their media allies spin the notion that Republican officeholders somehow have waged a ‘war on women.’ It’s a made-up attack, poll-tested to try to scare single women into thinking that politicians want to take away their birth control. The attack is nonsense, designed to distract the voters. The alleged threat simply doesn’t exist. I’ve been around conservatives all my life, and I’ve never encountered a single person who wanted to ban birth control.” [Ted Cruz, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America, 6/30/15]
Cruz Said The Republican “War On Women” Was “Made Up Nonsense.” According to CBS News, “Presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Monday evening ridiculed idea that Republicans were waging a ‘war on women,’ calling it, ‘made up nonsense.’ ‘Last I checked, we don’t have a rubber shortage in America,’ Cruz joked in response to a question at a town hall in Bettendorf, Iowa about his stance on contraception.” [CBS News, 11/30/15]
Cruz Said The Concept Of Republicans Acting As The “Condom Police” Was A “Completely Made Up Threat.” According to CBS News, “During the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, GOP views on contraception came under scrutiny due the party’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act -- the controversial health care law requires insurance companies to fully cover the cost of birth control. That issue, among others, was used to suggest Republicans were waging a ‘war on women.’ Yet Cruz on Monday suggested that Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton and other Democrats embraced the issue because they had no other way to rally voters. ‘What do you do? You go the condom police.’ Clinton ‘can’t run on Obamacare’ and ‘certainly can’t run on foreign policy,’ Cruz argued. Consequently, he colorfully suggested that scaring voters about the ‘condom police’ was her only avenue to success. ‘‘I’m going to make up a completely made up threat and try to scare a bunch of folks that are not paying a lot of attention that someone is going to steal their birth control,’ he said in a mocking Clinton imitation. ‘What nonsense.’ The large, standing-room-only crowd laughed in approval when the Texan joked, ‘Last I checked we don’t have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom, you put 50 cents and viola.’” [CBS News, 11/30/15]
- Cruz Said Democratic Candidates Attempted To Scare Voters By Suggesting That Republicans Were Waging A War On Women. According to CBS News, “During the 2012 and 2014 election cycles, GOP views on contraception came under scrutiny due the party’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act -- the controversial health care law requires insurance companies to fully cover the cost of birth control. That issue, among others, was used to suggest Republicans were waging a ‘war on women.’ Yet Cruz on Monday suggested that Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton and other Democrats embraced the issue because they had no other way to rally voters. ‘What do you do? You go the condom police.’ Clinton ‘can’t run on Obamacare’ and ‘certainly can’t run on foreign policy,’ Cruz argued. Consequently, he colorfully suggested that scaring voters about the ‘condom police’ was her only avenue to success. ‘‘I’m going to make up a completely made up threat and try to scare a bunch of folks that are not paying a lot of attention that someone is going to steal their birth control,’ he said in a mocking Clinton imitation. ‘What nonsense.’ The large, standing-room-only crowd laughed in approval when the Texan joked, ‘Last I checked we don’t have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom, you put 50 cents and viola.’” [CBS News, 11/30/15]
¶ Cruz Claimed Women Were Victims Of Abortion
Cruz Claimed Women Were “Victims” Of Abortion. According to the Capital Times, “Trump later walked back his statement, saying he believes abortion should be illegal but that abortion providers and not the women who receive them should be punished Cruz said Trump’s comments were the words of a liberal trying to say what conservatives want to hear. He argued that women are victims of abortion, and said no conservative wants to see women punished.” [Capital Times, 4/4/16]
¶ Cruz Blasted Trump For Supporting Abortion Rights, Later Criticized Trump’s Comments On Punishing Women For Having Abortions
¶ January 2016: Cruz And His Allies Attacked Trump For Supporting Abortion Access Prior To Being A Candidate
Cruz Released A Video Of Trump Saying He Was Supported Abortion Rights. According to the New York Times, “Later, Mr. Cruz’s campaign sent reporters a video of an interview with Mr. Trump from 1999, when he said on ‘Meet the Press’ that he was ‘very pro-choice’ and that he was more likely to support gay rights because he lived in New York. ‘It is a little bit curious that he is now offended at the notion that he embodies New York values,’ Mr. Cruz said.” [New York Times, 1/16/16]
Cruz-Linked Super PAC “Keep The Promise I” Released An Ad Of Trump Saying He Was Supportive Of Abortion Rights. According to the New York Times, “One of the ‘super PACs’ supporting Senator Ted Cruz is airing two attack ads against Donald J. Trump, using his own words against him to paint him as a liberal and as someone who has warmly praised the senator from Texas. The group, Keep the Promise I, will put the two spots into rotation in Iowa and South Carolina as part of a $2.5 million ad buy before next Monday’s Iowa caucuses. In one ad, called ‘Extreme,’ a narrator intones that Mr. Trump is ‘not a conservative.’ It uses a 1999 interview that Mr. Trump gave to Tim Russert, the former host of NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ in which Mr. Trump said, ‘I’m very pro choice.’ That snippet is played in a loop a few times in a row.” [New York Times, 1/25/16]
¶ April 2016: Separately, Cruz Criticized Trump's Comments On Punishing Women For Having An Abortion
Cruz Statement On Trump’s Comments That We Should Punish Women For Having Abortion: “Of Course We Shouldn’t Be Talking About Punishing Women.” According to a press release from the Cruz campaign, “Presidential candidate Ted Cruz issued the following statement in response to Donald Trump’s comments to MSNBC in favor of punishing women who have an abortion if they were banned: ‘Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention. On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life. Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.’” [Cruz Campaign, Press Release, 3/30/16]
Cruz In Responding To Trump’s Comments That Women Should Be Punished For Abortions, Claimed That “No Conservative Actually Believes That” And That Women Were Often Also “Victims” Of Abortion. According to an appearance on The Kelly File, “KELLY: What was domestic -- there’s this whole dustup this week where Donald Trump came out and said he believed that women should be punished if abortion were made illegal and a woman had an abortion, that he believed women should be punished. Then he dialed that back and reversed himself on it. What’s your view? CRUZ: Well, look, I think the statement Donald Trump made this week really illustrates -- I mean, it was a bizarre statement saying that he believed women should be punished. […] You know, part of being pro-life is valuing every human life, the unborn child, but also valuing the mother, celebrating the mother. I’ll tell you, many times the victims of abortion are not just the unborn children who never get a chance to live, but it’s the moms who are racked with guilt and it is a -- (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) -- it has, a great many women have suffered because of the tragedy of abortion, and we need to be celebrating and protecting all human life. […] No conservative actually believes that, but if you’re trying to pretend to be something you’re not, you get the rhetoric wrong, you don’t understand it and Jonah analogized it to the KKK.” [Kelly File, 4/4/16]
¶ April 2024: Cruz Refused To Agree With Trump On Abortion Nor Opine On Whether The Arizona Supreme Court Decision Upholding An 1864 Law To Outlaw Abortion “Went Too Far,” Instead Advocated For Voters Of Each State To Decide Their Own Abortion Policy
[AUDIO]Cruz Avoided Answering Whether He Agreed With Trump On The Arizona Ruling On Abortion And Argued It Was “The Voters Of Arizona” Who Would Decide Their Own Abortion Policy. “HOST: Number one, do you agree with Mr. Trump that Arizona went too far? And secondly, do you agree with Mr. Trump's new generic position, which he announced Monday, that essentially Arizona is a states’ rights, abortion is a states’ rights issue? CRUZ: Well, listen, on the first question, I think that's a question for the voters of Arizona to decide. And I have been saying for a long time that that that issues like abortion and this is what the Supreme Court said in the Dobbs decision, that those are issues on which people of good faith disagree and disagree strongly, passionately.” [Kudlow, 4/10/24]
[AUDIO] Cruz Downplayed Concerns Over Abortion Rights In Arizona By Claiming The Arizona Supreme Court Decision Was “Not Going To Be The Last Word On The Topic,” He Predicted That The Arizona Legislature Would Codify Modern Abortion Rules. “And what the Supreme Court said is on issues like that, the Constitution leaves it to the voters to decide it shouldn't be 9 unelected judges issuing an edict for the country. Rather, every voter should decide. And what that means right now is in bright blue states, in states like New York and California, you continue to have essentially unlimited abortion on demand. In redder states, you get more meaningful restrictions. And the particular place the line is drawn, what the nature of those restrictions are varies depending on the values and the mores of the citizens of those states. And so, this decision from the Arizona Supreme Court is not going to be the last word on the topic. The voters in Arizona are going to decide. The governor in Arizona has already called for legislation. I could certainly see the Arizona legislature acting to decide what the rules should be in the state of Arizona. And that's, when our framers wrote the Constitution, that's what they envisioned, that on issues where we've got sharp disagreements like this, it ought to be democracy making the decision, not a decree from on high.” [Kudlow, 4/10/24]
¶ As Texas Solicitor General, Cruz Took High Profile Defense Of Abortion Restrictions
¶ As Texas Solicitor General, Cruz Took Role In High-Profile Cases Related To Reproductive Rights
Cases with an asterisk in the table below are detailed in this document.
| Case | Case Number | Date Filed | Trial Location (Appellate Location) | Notability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gonzalez v. Carhart | 06A240 | 08/30/2006 | United States Supreme Court | Partial birth abortion ban. |
| Planned Parenthood, et al v. Sanchez* | 06-50013 | 01/05/2006 | United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit | Use of federal funds for Planned Parenthood. |
| Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England | 04-1144 | 11/24/2004 | United States Supreme Court | Women’s’ Reproductive Rights case. |
| Justice for All, et al v. Faulkner, et al | 04-50335 | 04/15/2004 | United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit | Deals with anti-abortion groups activities at UT Austin. |
| McCorvey v. Hill | 03-10711 | 07/22/2003 | United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit | Follow-up to Roe v. Wade |
| McCorvey v. Hill | 3:03-cv-01340 | 06/17/2003 | United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas | Follow-up to Roe v. Wade |
| Low Income Women v. Raiford | 03-98-00209-CV | 04/27/1998 | 3rd Court of Appeals, Texas | Deals with Medicaid restrictions on elective abortions. |
[Public Information In Response To Public Records Request, Texas Office of the Solicitor General, 4/17/15]
¶ As Solicitor General, Cruz Defended Texas Restrictions On Family Planning Funding
¶ March 2005: Cruz Defended Texas’ Restriction On Family Planning Funding
¶ Texas’ “Rider 8” Blocked State And Federal Funding From Abortion Providers And Organizations Affiliated With Them
Texas’ “Rider 8” Prohibited Groups Affiliated With Abortion Providers From Receiving State Or Federal Funding. According to Texas Right To Life, “With the American public growing increasingly uncomfortable with abortion coupled with out of control state budget deficits, a national move to remove (or at least limit) state and federal funds from the abortion industry is growing through funding restrictions such as Rider 8. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee set the budget for the state of Texas. Part of their task is to allocate and distribute money from the federal government. Representative Arlene Wohlgemuth (R-Burleson) attempted to amend the State Appropriations bill on the House floor by prohibiting federal money from funding the abortion industry in Texas. Her amendment was questionably dismissed on a point of order. (Calling a point of order is to question the validity of the committee procedures through which a bill passed on its way to the floor or to question the validity or germaneness of the amendment for other reasons.) In the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan/College Station) and Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) were able to add Rider 8 into the state budget. The provision is called a ‘rider’ because the clause ‘rides’ on the state budget bill. Rider 8 prohibits any state or federal money from going to entities that perform or refer for abortions or to entities that contract with other entities that perform or refer for abortions.” [Texas Right to Life, 7/26/10]
- “Rider 8” Prohibited Groups That Performed Or Provided Referrals For Abortions From Receiving Funding. According to Texas Right To Life, “With the American public growing increasingly uncomfortable with abortion coupled with out of control state budget deficits, a national move to remove (or at least limit) state and federal funds from the abortion industry is growing through funding restrictions such as Rider 8. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee set the budget for the state of Texas. Part of their task is to allocate and distribute money from the federal government. Representative Arlene Wohlgemuth (R-Burleson) attempted to amend the State Appropriations bill on the House floor by prohibiting federal money from funding the abortion industry in Texas. Her amendment was questionably dismissed on a point of order. (Calling a point of order is to question the validity of the committee procedures through which a bill passed on its way to the floor or to question the validity or germaneness of the amendment for other reasons.) In the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan/College Station) and Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) were able to add Rider 8 into the state budget. The provision is called a ‘rider’ because the clause ‘rides’ on the state budget bill. Rider 8 prohibits any state or federal money from going to entities that perform or refer for abortions or to entities that contract with other entities that perform or refer for abortions.” [Texas Right to Life, 7/26/10]
¶ Rider 8 Refused Federal Funding For Abortions With No Exceptions
Rider 8 Would Refuse Federal Funding For Abortion Providers Under Title XIX. According to the Austin Chronicle, “Planned Parenthood’s suit argues that the rider violates the U.S. Constitution (under the federal supremacy clause) by imposing state restrictions not authorized by the federal Title X, Medicaid, and Title XX programs. While federal law generally prohibits the use of public funds for abortions, Title XIX requires reimbursement for abortions involving rape, incest, or conditions threatening the mother’s health.” [Austin Chronicle, 7/25/03]
- Title XIX Required Federal Funding For Abortions Involving Rape, Incest, Or The Life Of The Mother. According to the Austin Chronicle, “Planned Parenthood’s suit argues that the rider violates the U.S. Constitution (under the federal supremacy clause) by imposing state restrictions not authorized by the federal Title X, Medicaid, and Title XX programs. While federal law generally prohibits the use of public funds for abortions, Title XIX requires reimbursement for abortions involving rape, incest, or conditions threatening the mother’s health.” [Austin Chronicle, 7/25/03]
¶ Rider 8 Would Have Denied At Least $13 Million To Planned Parenthood In Texas
Rider 8 Would Have Denied Planned Parenthood At Least $13 Million In Funding. According to the Austin Chronicle, “U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks has granted a preliminary injunction to six state Planned Parenthood affiliates suing the Texas Dept. of Health over a budget rider that denies federal family-planning funding to abortion providers. Sparks’ 36-page decision, issued Monday, Aug. 4, suspends Rider 8, a provision in the state appropriations bill passed in May that would have denied at least $13 million to 33 Planned Parenthood clinics across the state. Only seven of those clinics provide abortions; the others offer family planning, breast- and cervical-cancer screenings, Pap smears, and other health care services to 115,000 low-income women each year.” [Austin Chronicle, 8/8/03]
Rider 8 Would Have Defunded 33 Planned Parenthood Clinics. According to the Austin Chronicle, “U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks has granted a preliminary injunction to six state Planned Parenthood affiliates suing the Texas Dept. of Health over a budget rider that denies federal family-planning funding to abortion providers. Sparks’ 36-page decision, issued Monday, Aug. 4, suspends Rider 8, a provision in the state appropriations bill passed in May that would have denied at least $13 million to 33 Planned Parenthood clinics across the state. Only seven of those clinics provide abortions; the others offer family planning, breast- and cervical-cancer screenings, Pap smears, and other health care services to 115,000 low-income women each year.” [Austin Chronicle, 8/8/03]
¶ Planned Parenthood Provided Health Services For At Least 115,000 Women Per Year In Texas
In Texas, Planned Parenthood Provided Family Planning Services, And Cancer Screenings To Over 115,000 Low-Income Women Per Year. According to the Austin Chronicle, “U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks has granted a preliminary injunction to six state Planned Parenthood affiliates suing the Texas Dept. of Health over a budget rider that denies federal family-planning funding to abortion providers. Sparks’ 36-page decision, issued Monday, Aug. 4, suspends Rider 8, a provision in the state appropriations bill passed in May that would have denied at least $13 million to 33 Planned Parenthood clinics across the state. Only seven of those clinics provide abortions; the others offer family planning, breast- and cervical-cancer screenings, Pap smears, and other health care services to 115,000 low-income women each year.” [Austin Chronicle, 8/8/03]
¶ June 2003: Planned Parenthood Sued For An Injunction Against Rider 8
June 2003: Planned Parenthood Sued The Texas Department Of Health And Received An Injunction Against Rider 8. According to the Austin Chronicle, “On June 26, six state Planned Parenthood affiliates, including Austin-based Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region Inc., filed a lawsuit against the Texas Dept. of Health over a budget rider that denies family-planning funds -- including federal funds -- to clinics also providing abortion. Acting under a provision included in the new state budget bill, TDH Commissioner Eduardo Sanchez had imposed a June 30 deadline for clinics to either sign an agreement promising not to provide abortions or lose public funding, but Planned Parenthood was granted a temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks. On Friday, July 25, Sparks will decide whether to provide a preliminary injunction pending resolution of the lawsuit by the six named plaintiff affiliates, which together represent 31 Texas clinics -- only seven of which actually provide abortions -- and annually serve an estimated 115,000 clients. While none of Austin’s three Planned Parenthood clinics currently offer abortions, the Austin office of Planned Parenthood also joined the suit, because it plans to break ground in September on a new abortion and family-planning facility that (under the new rules) would be denied funding. Budget Rider 8 -- described by Houston Rep. Talmadge Heflin as ‘pure and simple’ -- does permit the state to grant a waiver to clinics, valid until Aug. 31, 2004, but only if TDH can’t find a substitute family-planning provider.” [Austin Chronicle, 7/25/03]
¶ March 2005: The 5th Circuit Court Ordered A Review Of The Injunction Against Rider 8
March 2005: 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Ordered A District Judge To Revisit His Ruling That Suspended A State Law Barring Organizations That Perform Abortions From Receiving Federal Funds For Family Planning. According to the San Antonio Express-News, “As one federal appeals court sees it, clinics that offer birth control and gynecological exams in one room and abortions across the hall, under the same organization, can’t receive taxpayer money. But if the organization sets up a separate legal entity for its abortion services, it still can get federal money earmarked for its family planning functions. The question is: Do the abortion services have to be across the street, or under a different name? A judge in Austin must answer that question now that an appeals court disagreed with his ruling that suspended a state law barring organizations that perform abortions from receiving federal funds for family planning. In a case closely watched by those on both sides of the abortion issue, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week ordered U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin to revisit the case and lift his injunction, which he issued in 2003.” [San Antonio Express-News, 3/17/05]
¶ Cruz Defended Rider 8 In Court
Cruz Defended Texas Rider 8 To Ban State Funds For Groups Providing Abortions. According to Ted Cruz 2016 Presidential Campaign Website, “Proven Record: Fought to take away taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood. Led the charge on behalf of 13 states to successfully defend a federal law that bans partial birth abortion before the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocated for an investigation into abortion practices in the U.S. to prevent the atrocities witnessed in Kermit Gosnell’s facility from ever happening again. Joined 18 states in successfully defending the New Hampshire parental-notification law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Successfully defended Texas’s Rider 8, which prohibits state funds for groups that provide abortions.” [Ted Cruz 2016 Presidential Campaign Website, Accessed 1/18/16]
Cruz: “Rider 8 Is Entirely Consistent With Federal Law And The U.S. Constitution. We Are Pleased That The Federal Court Of Appeals Unanimously Agreed And Disapproved The District Court’s Injunction Against That State Law.” According to the San Antonio Express-News, “In light of the appeals court ruling, both sides of the issue said they were pleased. ‘Rider 8 is entirely consistent with federal law and the U.S. Constitution,’ said Ted Cruz, solicitor general for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. ‘We are pleased that the federal court of appeals unanimously agreed and disapproved the district court’s injunction against that state law.’” [San Antonio Express-News, 3/17/05]
¶ December 2005: The Court Upheld Rider 8’s Funding Restrictions Against Planned Parenthood
December 2005: The Court Lifted The Injunction Against Rider 8. According to Find Law, “On July 29, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the district court for a declaratory judgment and for attorney’s fees. On August 1, 2005, the Defendant filed a motion to dissolve the permanent injunction and for the entry of a final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On December 15, 2005, the district court entered an order and final judgment granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a declaratory judgment as moot. The district court also denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees, concluding that Plaintiffs were not a prevailing party within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988.” [Find Law, accessed 1/21/16]