Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Mark Kirk kicked by abortions rights group after Stupak-Pitts vote

| 7 Comments


Updated Tuesday afternoon with Kirk response

Maybe in the end the Stupak-Pitts amendment the House included in the health reform bill approved Saturday night--placing restrictions on insurance paying for abortions--won't survive in the Senate version and/or when the two chambers work out differences in the legislation.

But Illinois Senate hopeful Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) damaged his 100 per cent abortion rights voting record by supporting Stupak-Pitts. Presuming Kirk wins the GOP primary--a contest where Kirk is the extreme front-runner--Kirk handed Democrats a general election issue. On Tuesday, Kirk was kicked by the National Abortion Rights League for his vote.
An e-mailed to a Kirk spokesman was not returned.

Update Tuesday afternoon.


Statement from Kirk campaign manager, Eric Elk:

"Congressman Kirk is pro-choice and opposes federal funding of abortion. That is the same position he held when he first ran for Congress in 2000 and it hasn't changed. In 2000, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Daily Herald all reported on NARAL's misleading partisan smears of Mr. Kirk's record. With unemployment topping 10% and a corrupt governor facing criminal trial, the people of Illinois want a reform-minded social moderate and fiscal conservative like Congressman Mark Kirk who will lower taxes, rein in spending and create jobs for Illinois families."


Kirk abortion related ratings From Project VoteSmart.org
2008 Representative Kirk supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2008.
2007-2008 Representative Kirk supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 100 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Right to Life Committee's position, Representative Kirk received a rating of 0.


Below, NARAL statement....
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today denounced the anti-choice health-care vote of Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

Kirk was once regarded as a moderate, fair-minded supporter of women's privacy and rights, but no longer. After Kirk voted in favor of the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment, which effectively bans abortion coverage in the new health system, NARAL Pro-Choice America no longer considers Kirk pro-choice.

"It is obvious from his recent votes, including the indefensible vote for the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban amendment, that Mark Kirk would rather have the endorsement of Sarah Palin than the support of millions of pro-choice voters in Illinois," Keenan said.
Keenan said Kirk's vote is confirmation that he is engaged in a political calculation that betrays his professed standards of centrism and moderation, and therefore, he doesn't deserve a promotion to the U.S. Senate.

"Rep. Kirk is clearly abandoning the moderate positions that afforded him re-election to the House in favor of radically conservative views that he hopes will bolster support for his Senate campaign," Keenan said. "His move to the radical right is not what we expect from a moderate member of Congress. Women's freedom and privacy are at stake, and I am committed to working with NARAL Pro-Choice America's 98,000 Illinois activists, members, and supporters to defeat Mark Kirk's Senate campaign."

7 Comments

I for one believe that women do have a right to chose; however I do not believ that I have an obligation to pay for that choice. My tax dollars should not go to pay for abortions any more than it should pay for guns for people who want to exercise thier right to bear arms

You are missing the point KMAC, the bill already up held that a public option would not let any tax dollars be used for abortions. What Stupak Penn did was tell women that not even private health insurance purchased under an exchange, where they pay for their own insurance, can contain abortion insurance. Women would have to purchase a rider to an insurance policy to obtain that insurance. If a womans life is at risk because of a pregnancy the abortion could not be preformed even if both lives are at stake.

Everyone is always yelling about "my tax dollars". Well, what if I don't want my tax dollars supporting the war? Do I have a choice? Our public transportation system is supported by taxes. I don't use the bus or any form of public transportation, why should my tax dollars go toward that?

It boils down is that there are people in need. The disastrous situations where a child or woman is raped and becomes pregnant, a teenager get pregnant, or a woman's life is in danger if the pregnancy continues. You are saying to these children and women "Die or have your life ruined because I do not want my taxes going to help you".

Mr KMac, you are a soulless twit.

LM54,

Though I consider myself 100% pro-life and anti-death penalty, I believe the Stupak-Pitts amendment included exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

LM54, make your criticisms or observations without hurling insults. If you can't refrain, as some liberals can't, go to a liberal cornball website and post. FYI, rape and incest account for a very, very low percentage in the annual abortion statistics.

abortion rules! the world is overpopulated! our country and, in fact, our dear city, are overpopulated with idiots. those idiots give birth to kids. those kids grow up to be (what else?) idiots. and then they give birth, too, now don't they? anyone who opposes abortion opposes common sense and should be made to attend classes.

Naral won't be happy until we have:

"FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!!!"

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on November 10, 2009 1:47 PM.

Obama's Fort Hood remarks. "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts" Prepared text was the previous entry in this blog.

Obama Fort Hood speech. Transcript is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.