Marco Rubio And Abortion

Rubio Supported Federal Bans On Abortion

Rubio Backed Constitutional Efforts To Ban Abortion Federally

Rubio Supported A Constitutional Amendment Banning Abortion. According to the National Pro-Life Alliance 2010 Congressional Candidate Survey, “Will you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion except to prevent the death of the mother? [Rubio]: Yes.” [National Pro-Life Alliance 2010 Congressional Candidate Survey, 7/6/10]

Rubio Claimed That The President Had Power From The Constitution To Ban Abortion

Rubio Argued That The Constitution Allowed The President To Outlaw Abortion. According to the Huffington Post, “Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) found one thing they could agree on during Thursday’s Republican presidential debate: They both believe the Constitution already gives the president the power to outlaw abortion. Their view is a minority one in the legal community that is out of sync with the overwhelming consensus on constitutional interpretation.” [Huffington Post, 8/7/15]

Rubio Expressed Support For The Life At Conception Act, Which Would Have Banned Abortion Nationwide And Imperiled Access To Contraception And IVF

2010: Rubio Indicated He Would “Support And Cosponsor” The Life At Conception Act. According to the National Pro-Life Alliance 2010 Congressional Candidate Survey, “Would you support and cosponsor a Life at Conception Act defining that life begins at the moment on conception thereby resolving for all time, as stated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, “the difficult question of when life begins?” [Rubio:] Yes.” [National Pro-Life Alliance 2010 Congressional Candidate Survey, 7/6/10]

The Life At Conception Act Would Ban Abortion Nationwide

UC Davis School Of Law Professor Mary Ziegler On The Life At Conception Act: “It Would Be A Nationwide Abortion Ban.” According to the Los Angeles Times, “The Life at Conception Act is fewer than 300 words, but its language leaves little room for ambiguity on abortion. The bill, introduced in the U.S. House earlier in the congressional session, seeks ‘equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person,’ specifying that it covers ‘all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.’ Put simply: ‘It would be a nationwide abortion ban,’ said Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis School of Law who studies reproductive rights.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/29/22]

The Legislation Could Also Threaten Access To The Morning-After Pill And IUDs

Ziegler Claimed The Legislation Could Ban Some Forms Of Contraception, Including The Morning-After Pill. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The Life at Conception Act is fewer than 300 words, but its language leaves little room for ambiguity on abortion. The bill, introduced in the U.S. House earlier in the congressional session, seeks ‘equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person,’ specifying that it covers ‘all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.’ Put simply: ‘It would be a nationwide abortion ban,’ said Mary Ziegler, a professor at UC Davis School of Law who studies reproductive rights. […] Ziegler, the UC Davis law professor, said the legislation’s ban on abortion could also extend to some contraceptives, such as morning-after pills, she said.” [Los Angeles Times, 8/29/22]

Legal Scholars Said The Legislation Could Threaten Access To IUDs. According to New York, “The Life at Conception Act is a classic ‘personhood’ bill treating every fetus, embryo, and fertilized ovum as just like me and you when it comes to fundamental rights. While the bill does say it does not ‘authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child,’ there’s no exception to the ‘right to life’ for pregnancies involving rape, incest, or even threats to the life of the mother. Most legal scholars believe ‘personhood’ statutes could ban morning-after pills or the use of IUDs.” [New York, 8/31/22]

The Life At Conception Act Would Not Protect IVF

The Life At Conception Act Would Imperil Access To IVF. According to the Washington Post, “The congressional proposal, known as the Life at Conception Act, defines a ‘human being’ to ‘include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.’ The bill would also provide equal protection under the 14th Amendment ‘for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.’ The measure has no provisions for processes like IVF, meaning access to the procedure would not be protected. It would ban nearly all abortions nationwide.” [Washington Post, 2/25/24]

Consistent With The Life At Conception Act, Rubio Claimed Fertilized Eggs Were Human Beings

In Line With The Life At Conception Act, Rubio Said Fertilized Eggs Were Human Beings. According to Slate, “When Rubio appeared on CNN after Thursday night’s Republican debate, he kept insisting that this vague entity called ‘science’ has declared that human life begins at conception. […] CNN host Chris Cuomo vainly tried to point out that ‘science’ says no such thing, and Rubio got a little excited. ‘Let me interrupt you. Science has—absolutely it has. Science has decided… Science has concluded that—absolutely it has. What else can it be?’ he asked. Then Rubio reared up for what he clearly intended as his wowza line: ‘It cannot turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey. The only thing that that can become is a human being.’ Cuomo pointed out that Rubio was ‘oversimplifying it a little bit’: ‘It having a DNA map—so does a plant.’ The question of when you think a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus becomes a person is, Cuomo said, a matter of ‘faith. That’s not science.’ But Rubio, grinning with pleasure at the sick burn he’s about to administer, replied, ‘Well, if they can’t say it will be human life, what does it become, then? Could it become a cat?’” [Slate, 8/11/15]

Rubio Opposed Roe v. Wade

Rubio Signed A Brief That Called On The Supreme Court To Consider Overturning Roe V. Wade

Rubio Signed On To Amicus Brief That Called For Supreme Court Reconsider Overturning Roe v. Wade In Dobbs v. Jackson. According to the Washington Examiner, “Possible Republican presidential contenders have asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, arguing in court documents the 1973 decision was unconstitutional. GOP lawmakers possibly positioning themselves for a 2024 presidential run, such as Sens. Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio and Govs. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas, petitioned the Supreme Court this week to throw out Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which is on the court’s agenda for the 2021-2022 term.  ‘If the Court construes Roe … as prohibiting the assertion of vital state interests in regulating abortion — such as protecting women from dangerous late-term abortions … these precedents should be reconsidered and, where necessary, wholly or partially overruled,’ Rubio and Cotton wrote with 42 other senators and 184 House members in a brief filed to the Supreme Court on Thursday.” [Washington Examiner, 8/1/21]

Rubio Voiced His Opposition To Roe v. Wade

Rubio Called Roe v. Wade An “Egregiously Flawed Supreme Court Decision.” According to Bloomberg, “At the National Right to Life Convention on Friday, Florida Senator Marco Rubio touted his opposition to abortion rights, long a prerequisite for being a viable Republican presidential candidate. Speaking to the crowd in New Orleans, he hit all the necessary notes — legal abortion is ‘the taking of innocent life on a massive scale’; Roe v. Wade was an ‘egregiously flawed Supreme Court decision’; the case for abortion rights is ‘indefensible.’” [Bloomberg, 7/10/15]

Marco Rubio And Social Security And Medicare

Rubio Supported Raising The Retirement Age

Rubio Proposed Raising The Retirement Age 

Rubio On Raising The Retirement Age: “We Would Continue To Allow It To Increase The Retirement Age For Future Generations Until It Hit 70.” According to the Washington Post, “BASH: Senator, the question was specific though. You made your plan very clear about generally what you want to do, but how high would the retirement age go and how much would you cut those benefits? RUBIO: Well, I’m sorry I didn’t answer that part. So the thing is that my — my generation, someone my age would retire at 68. We would continue to allow it to increase the retirement age for future generations until it hit 70. And so my children would retire at 70. I would retire at 68. It would be a graduating scale over a period of time.” [Washington Post, 3/10/16]

2010: Rubio Proposed Raising The Retirement Age To 70.  According to the Associated Press, “Marco Rubio wants Americans to work longer and retire later to places like Florida, a stand that has drawn criticism from his Senate rivals and unnerves some in the Sunshine State where one out of every seven residents gets a Social Security check. As the nation grapples with the fast growing insolvency of entitlement programs, likely Republican nominee Rubio has proposed raising the retirement age and cutting benefits to younger workers. Rubio wants to raise the full retirement age, which now ranges from 65 to 67 depending on a person’s birth year, until it reaches 70 in the next century. He would exempt people currently over 55.” [Associated Press, 5/26/10]

VIDEO: Rubio Called For Raising The Retirement Age. According to Fox News Sunday via YouTube, “RUBIO: But certainly, I think if you’re 55 years of age or older, or close enough to retirement, 55 is the number that the Ryan plan uses, I think this is off the table. We’re not talking about you. We are talking about folks like me that are 39 years of age, many years away from retirement. Social Security, whether we want it to or not, in its current form cannot survive and will not exist for us. In fact, just this week we received the news that for the first time Social Security is now paying out more in benefits than it’s taking in. That was something that was supposed to happen in 2016. It’s now happening in 2010. WALLACE: So, direct question… RUBIO: Absolutely. WALLACE: … would you raise… RUBIO: Yes. WALLACE: … the retirement age? Rubio: I think that has to be on the table. That’s got to be part of the solution, the retirement age gradually increases for people of my generation. I think it’s got to be part of.” [Fox News Sunday via YouTube, 3/28/10]

Rubio Spoke Negatively About Social Security And Medicare, Said The Programs “Weakened Us As A People” And Were “Bankrupting” The Country

2011: RUBIO SAID THAT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE “WEAKENED US AS A PEOPLE”

VIDEO: Rubio Said That Social Security And Medicare “Weakened Us As People.” According to the Reagan Library via YouTube, “RUBIO: These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.” [Reagan Library, 8/23/11] 

Rubio Denied Ever Saying That Social Security And Medicare “Weakened Us As A People”

2011: Rubio Denied That He Had Said Social Security And Medicare Had “Weakened Us As A People.” According to Politico, “He said Social Security and Medicare have ‘weakened us as a people,’ said Murphy, accusing Rubio of wanting to privatize Medicare. Rubio also denied that he said Social Security and Medicare ‘weakened us as a people’ in 2011. He said he was talking about the debt. However, news reports and video of his remarks at the time indicate Rubio was also discussing the social costs of having government assume care for people that used to be provided by family members.” [Politico, 10/26/16]

Rubio: “Social Security, Medicare, And Medicaid Are Bankrupting Our Country” 

2011: Rubio Stated That “Social Security, Medicare And Medicaid Are Bankrupting Our Country.” According to the Tallahassee Democrat, “Rubio said entitlement spending, which the legislation didn’t address, also must be reduced. […] ‘While reducing discretionary spending is an important goal, Washington is devoting a disproportionate amount of time to a tiny slice of the budget while ignoring the fact that continued inaction on saving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is bankrupting our country.” [Tallahassee Democrat, 3/10/11]

Rubio Advocated For The Privatization Of Social Security

2010: Rubio Advocated For The Privatization Of Social Security

Tampa Tribune: “Rubio Advocated Privatization” Of Social Security “As Recently As February 2010.” According to the Tampa Tribune, “Social Security is jumping to the front of the U.S. Senate race…Republican Marco Rubio says he’s the only candidate who can be trusted to preserve the program in its current form. In a three way duel reminiscent of a Clint Eastwood western, each is dodging incoming rounds and hurling attacks in two different directions. […] Meek, meanwhile, says the program can be preserved without the changes advocated by Rubio, and advocates a panel of experts to propose long term solutions. He says both Crist and Rubio favor partial privatization of Social Security, and that he is the only candidate who will ‘stand up to make sure we can preserve Social Security and not privatize it.’ Crist and Rubio both deny that, although Rubio advocated privatization as recently as February.” [Tampa Tribune, 9/25/10] 

2010: Rubio Supported Private Accounts, Changed Position After “Reviewing The Data.” According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, “Rubio himself once supported putting Social Security in private accounts – a move opposed by the AARP, among others – but has since backed off that proposal, drawing charges of ‘flip-flopping’ from his Senate rivals. ‘It’s hard to keep up,’ said Gov. Charlie Crist, a former Republican who is running as an independent in the Senate race. ‘Obviously, he is all over the map as far as Social Security.’ Rubio’s aides said the former state House speaker changed his position after reviewing the data. [Sarasota Herald Tribune, 10/4/10]