With two weeks to go until the May 20 Pennsylvania primary, and with analysts observing that single women are the key to success in this year’s elections, Rep. Brendan F. Boyle is the second Pennsylvania Democrat to stump on a woman’s right to choose despite having recently supported anti-choice legislation.
Tillis, a staunchly anti-choice politician who says he would support a “personhood” amendment to the U.S. Constitution and believes states should have the right to ban contraceptives, won the Republican nomination for Senate outright on Tuesday night.
Why are Wendy Davis and Terry McAuliffe, two Southern politicians who made names for themselves as reproductive rights supporters, suddenly shrinking away from the issue of abortion?
A proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2016, and adjust it to inflation thereafter, was filibustered by Republicans in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.
Democratic Sen. Mark Udall claimed Monday that his opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner (R), supports federal personhood legislation, even though Gardner recently unendorsed a state “personhood” amendment.
For every odious anti-choice bill that passes into law, there are about a dozen others that fail, or never see the light of day. Here’s a list of some major bullets dodged so far this year in the state legislatures.
Rep. Margo Davidson is campaigning for the upcoming Democratic primary on a pro-choice platform, but she has in the past voted for a bill that shut down abortion clinics in the state as well as for a law banning insurers from selling policies that cover abortion care through the state’s insurance exchange.
One of the most exciting state house races in Pennsylvania this year is a primary race between two Democrats, Reps. Harry Readshaw and Erin Molchany, for House District 36 in Pittsburgh.
The bills passed on Friday include one that would restrict access to later abortion in the state, and another bill that would make it a separate crime to kill or injure a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman.
The case would have given the Court a chance to decide if state bans on direct corporate-to-candidate contributions violate the Constitution.