Jared Polis on Abortion
Fund Planned Parenthood; require insurers' contraception
Q: Abortion: Mostly ban or mostly legal?
Jared Polis (D): Legal. Strong pro-choice advocate.
Walker Stapleton (R): Mostly ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of mother. Won't say if he'll sign abortion restriction bills.
Q: Let employers withhold contraceptive coverage from employees if disagree with it morally?
Q: Let Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health services?
Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Colorado Governor race
, Oct 9, 2018
I am pro-choice
I strongly support the right to privacy and
I am pro-choice.
Source: 2008 House campaign website, polisforcongress.com, “Issues”
, Nov 4, 2008
Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.
Congressional Summary:Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.
- Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
- Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.
- Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain.
We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
Reference: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act;
; vote number 11-HV292
on May 4, 2011
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.
Endorsed by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Polis is endorsed by by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government.
Source: NARAL website 12-NARAL on Jan 1, 2012
Rated 100% by Planned Parenthood, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Polis scores 100% by Planned Parenthood abortion voting record - Planned Parenthood Action Fund 2015 Lifetime Score
Planned Parenthood provides reproductive services for women, including contraception, information on STDs, and abortion services. The organization receives federal funding, but not for abortion services. The organization scores legislators on their voting record on abortion rights.
Source: Planned Parenthood website 12-P-P on Jan 1, 2012
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.
Polis co-sponsored Women's Health Protection Act
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
- a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures;
- a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks;
- a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment;
- a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements;
- a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;
- a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News):
This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Source: H.R.3471 & S.1696 14-H3471 on Nov 13, 2013
Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions.
Polis co-sponsored S.217 & H.R.448
Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:
Access to safe, legal abortion services has been hindered in various ways, including blockades of health care facilities; restrictions on insurance coverage; restrictions on minors' ability to obtain services; and requirements that single out abortion providers.
- These restrictions harm women's health by reducing access to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services.
- The cumulative effect of these numerous restrictions has been that a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional rights is dependent on the State in which she lives.
- It is the purpose of this Act to protect women's health by ensuring that abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions
Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014):
During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.
Source: Women's Health Protection Act 15_H448 on Jan 21, 2015
- Myth: Life-affirming laws are enacted "under the false pretext of health and safety."
Fact: Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.
- Myth: "Where abortion services are restricted and unavailable, abortions still occur and are mostly unsafe."
Fact: Where abortion is restricted, maternal mortality rates have decreased.
- Myth: Admitting privileges laws are "not medically justified."
Fact: Women with abortion complications are told to go to an emergency department. This would constitute malpractice in any other scenario.
- Myth: Ultrasounds and their descriptions are "cruel and inhumane."
Fact: Allowing women the opportunity to view their ultrasounds serves an important role in providing informed consent, enabling women to exercise true choice.
Funding abortion avoids discrimination against poor women.
Polis voted NAY No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women's health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should
not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama's approach to health care reform--forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans--cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.
Thus both sides' fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Congressional vote 15-H0007 on Jan 22, 2015
Constitutional right to terminate pregnancy for health.
Polis voted NAY Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.
ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman's right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman's most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman's health, no matter how severe the situation.
H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so "complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.
Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.
Source: Congressional vote 15-H0036 on May 13, 2015
- Click here for definitions & background information
- Click here for a summary of all issue stances
of Jared Polis.
- Click here for a Wikipedia profile
of Jared Polis.
- Click here for a Ballotpedia profile
of Jared Polis.
- Click here for VoteMatch responses
by Jared Polis.
- Click here for issue positions of
other CO politicians.
- Click here for
CO primary archives.
- Click here for
CO secondary archives.
Other governors on Abortion:
Jared Polis on other issues:
Gubernatorial Debates 2021:
vs.Former Gov. nominee John Cox(R)
vs.Former U.S.Rep Doug Ose(R)
vs.Former Olympian Caitlyn Jenner(R)
vs.Radio Host Larry Elder(R)
Incumbent Phil Murphy(D)
vs.State Rep. Jack Ciattarelli(R)
vs.Candidate Hirsh Singh(R)
vs.GOP Chair Doug Steinhardt(R)
Incumbent Ralph Northam(D,term-limited)
vs.Former Governor Terry McAuliffe(D)
vs.CEO Glenn Youngkin(R)
A.G. Mark Herring(D)
State Sen. Amanda Chase(I)
Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax(D)
State Rep. Jennifer Carroll Foy(D)
State Rep. Lee Carter(D)
State Sen. Jennifer McClellan(D)
State Rep. Kirk Cox(R)
CEO Pete Snyder(R)
Gubernatorial Debates 2023:
Incumbent Andy Beshear(D)
vs.Former Gov. Matt Bevin(? R)
vs.Senator Rand Paul(? R)
vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R)
Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited)
vs.Biden Adviser Cedric Richmond(? D)
vs.Senator John Neely Kennedy(? R)
Incumbent Tate Reeves(R)
Gubernatorial Debates 2022:
Incumbent Mike Dunleavy(R)
vs.State Rep. Chris Kurka(R)
Incumbent Kay Ivey(R)
vs.Stacy Lee George(R)
vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R)
vs.State Sen. Malika Sanders-Fortier(D)
vs.Challenger Tim James(R)
Incumbent Asa Hutchinson(R,term-limited)
vs.Trump Adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders(R)
A.G. Leslie Rutledge(R,withdrew Nov.2021)
vs.Ricky Dale Harrington(L)
Incumbent Doug Ducey(R,term-limited)
Mayor Marco Lopez(D)
vs.Former news anchor Kari Lake(R)
vs.Secretary of State Katie Hobbs(D)
vs.State Treasurer Kimberly Yee(R)
vs.State Rep.Aaron Lieberman(D)
vs.Karrin Taylor Robson(R)
Incumbent Gavin Newsom(D)
vs.Former Gov. nominee John Cox(R)
vs.State Sen. Brian Dahle(R)
Incumbent Jared Polis(D)
vs.Mayor Greg Lopez(R)
Incumbent Ned Lamont(D)
vs.Bob Stefanowski(? R)
Incumbent Ron DeSantis(R)
vs.Former Gov.Charlie Crist(D)
vs.Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried(D)
Incumbent Brian Kemp(R)
vs.Minority Leader Stacey Abrams(D)
vs.Senate candidate Shane Hazel(L)
vs.State Rep.Vernon Jones(R)
vs.2020 candidate Kandiss Taylor(R)
vs.Senator David Perdue(R)
Incumbent David Ige(D,term-limited)
vs.State Rep.Kirk Caldwell(D)
Incumbent Kim Reynolds(R)
vs.State Rep.Ras Smith(D)
Incumbent Brad Little(R)
vs.Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin(R)
Incumbent J.B. Pritzker(D)
vs.State Sen.Darren Bailey(R)
Incumbent Laura Kelly(D)
vs.State Sen.Derek Schmidt(R)
Gubernatorial Debates 2022 (continued):
Incumbent Charlie Baker(R)
vs.State Rep. Geoff Diehl(R)
vs.Harvard Professor Danielle Allen(D)
vs.State Sen.Ben Downing(D)
vs.State Sen.Sonia Chang-Diaz(D)
vs.A.G. Maura Healey(D)
Incumbent Larry Hogan(R,term-limited)
vs.State Del.Robin Ficker(R)
vs.State Del.Peter Franchot(D)
vs.State Del.Kelly M. Schulz(R)
vs.Secretary John B. King(D)
vs.State A.G. Doug Gansler(D)
vs.County Exec. Rushern Baker(D)
vs.Secretary Thomas Perez(D)
Incumbent Janet Mills(D)
vs.Former Gov. Paul LePage(R)
Incumbent Gretchen Whitmer(D)
vs.Chief James Craig(R)
vs.Police Chief Tudor Dixon(R)
vs.John E. James(? R)
Incumbent Tim Walz(DFL)
vs.Mayor Mike Murphy(R)
vs.State Sen.Scott Jensen(R)
Incumbent Pete Ricketts(R,term-limited)
vs.U.S.Senator Bob Krist(R)
vs.State Sen. Theresa Thibodeau(R)
Incumbent Chris Sununu(R)
Incumbent Michelle Lujan Grisham(D)
vs.Commissioner Jay Block(R)
vs.State Rep.Rebecca Dow(R)
Incumbent Steve Sisolak(D)
vs.North Las Vegas Mayor John Lee(R)
vs.Mayor Michele Fiore(R)
Incumbent Andrew Cuomo(D,resigned)
vs.Acting Gov.Kathy Hochul(D)
Attorney General Letitia James(D)
Incumbent Mike DeWine(R)
vs.Former Rep.Jim Renacci(R)
vs.Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley(D)
vs.Mayor John Cranley(D)
Incumbent Kevin Stitt(R)
vs.State Sen. Ervin Yen(R)
Incumbent Kate Brown(D,term-limited)
vs.Gov. nominee Bud Pierce(R)
vs.State Rep. Christine Drazan(R)
Incumbent Tom Wolf(D,term-limited)
vs.U.S.Rep. Lou Barletta(R)
vs.Commissioner Joe Gale(R)
vs.State Sen.Scott Martin(R)
vs.State Sen. Scott Martin(R)
vs.State Sen. Doug Mastriano(R)
Incumbent Gina Raimondo(D,to Cabinet)
vs.Gov. Dan McKee(D)
vs.Mayor Allan Fung(R ?)
vs.RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea(D)
Incumbent Henry McMaster(R)
vs.State senator Mia McLeod(D)
Incumbent Kristi Noem(R)
vs.State Rep. Billie Sutton(? D)
vs.Speaker Steven Haugaard(R)
Incumbent Bill Lee(R)
vs.J B Smiley(D)
Incumbent Greg Abbott(R)
vs.State Sen.Don Huffines(R)
vs.U.S.Rep. Allen West(R)
Incumbent Phil Scott(R)
(no prospective opponents yet)
Incumbent Tony Evers(D)
vs.CEO Jonathan Wichmann(R)
vs.State Rep. Timothy Ramthun(R)
Incumbent Mark Gordon(R)
vs.Minority Leader Chris Rothfuss(? D)
Email Contact Form
Cannon HOB 501, Washington, DC 20515
Page last updated: May 17, 2022