Skip to:


The Bera for Congress campaign released a new ad today, a 30-second commercial called "Backwards."
The ad exposes former Congressman Doug Ose's anti-women record, including his stances against giving women access to birth control, and against a woman's right to make her own personal health choices.

"Doug Ose is just another politician who thinks he can tell women how to handle their personal, private healthcare decisions," said Bera spokesperson Allison Teixeira. "He not only supports denying women access to birth control, but also repeatedly voted against a woman's right to choose when he was in Congress. Former Congressman Doug Ose's record on women's health is shameful and totally out of step with Sacramento County."

Watch the ad here: "Backwards"


Ose supports the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decisions that restricts women's access to birth control.

Folsom Telegraph: Doug Ose Supports Supreme Court's "Hobby Lobby" Decision. In August 2014, the Folsom Telegraph interviewed Doug Ose and Ami Bera about the upcoming election. Ose was asked about the Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" case, and he responded that he supported the verdict:

The court very clearly said the owners of a very restricted class of business enterprises enjoy constitutional privileges with respect to religion. That’s one of the foundations of this country, that we respect people’s religious preferences. If someone wants to change that, they ought to put forward a constitutional amendment.

[Folsom Telegraph, 08/19/2014]

Hobby Lobby Ruling Limited Birth Control Access. In June 2014, according to the New York Times, the Supreme Court ruled that family-owned corporations do not have to provide their employees with contraceptive coverage in their health insurance based on the corporations' owners' political beliefs. This overturned a provision in the Affordable Care Act, and the Obama Administration had argued that "requiring insurance plans to include comprehensive coverage for contraception... ensures that 'women have equal access to health care services.'" [New York Times, 6/30/2014]

In Congress, Ose voted anti-choice,  restricting a woman’s right to choose again and again.

H.R. 760, Vote #241, 6.04.03

Ose Voted to Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion With No Exception for the Health of the Mother. In 2003, Ose voted in favor of a bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. This bill contained no exceptions to protect the health of the mother, and it stated that "a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman." An earlier motion to recommit the bill to committee in order to add those exceptions failed. The bill passed 282-139. [CQ Floor Votes, 6/04/03; HR 760, Vote #242, 6/04/03; Congressional Record; 6/4/2003;; 6/4/2003]

Supreme Court: No Health Exemptions "Place Women at an Unnecessary Risk of Tragic Health Consequences." In the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling on Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court recognized that "the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences." [NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1/1/2014; United States Supreme Court, Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 937]

NARAL: "Eliminating the Health Exception Is an Anti-Choice Tactic to Dismantle Roe." According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, anti-choice policies that fail to provide exceptions for the health of the mother assault "the pillars of Roe and... the core right to legal abortion." NARAL reported that "anti-abortion activists consider the protection of women’s health to be a 'loophole' that must be closed" and noted:

Anti-choice activists admit that “inducing the Court to define ‘health’ in a restrictive manner represent[s] a beneficial strategy in reversing Roe.” Now, five sitting justices on the Supreme Court have made clear their hostility to the health exception as originally established in Roe and Doe.

[NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1/1/2014]

NARAL: "Legal Abortion Can Save Women’s Lives and Safeguard Women’s Health." According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, anti-choice policies that fail to provide exceptions for the health of the mother force "women who have high-risk pregnancies... to continue the pregnancy at the expense of their own health and sometimes lives." [NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1/1/2014]

Rep. Meeks: H.R. 760 "Would Outlaw... the Safest and Most Common Procedures" With No Health Exceptions. In 2003, during Congressional debate over H.R. 760 - which would ban so-called "partial-birth abortions" - Representative Meeks (D-NY) argued that the bill "distorts the issue" and said:

H.R. 760 is a broadly written piece of legislation that would outlaw some of the safest and most common abortion procedures and makes no exception to preserve a woman's health or her fertility.

[Congressional Record, 6/4/2003]

H.R. 1997, Vote #31; 2.26.04

H.R. 1997: Ose Voted With Anti-Women Fanatics Like Todd Akin to Define a Fetus as a Separate Legal Person, Potentially Undermining the Right to Abortion and Birth Control. In February 2004, Ose voted in favor of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The bill sought to make it possible to prosecute attacks on a pregnant mother and her fetus separately, and defined a fetus as a separate legal person from the moment of conception. The bill passed the House, 254-163, and was signed into law by President Bush.

U.S. Representative Todd Akin, who in 2012 justified his extreme anti-choice positions by declaring that “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy, led the debate on the House floor in favor of the bill and voted for the legislation. [H.R. 1997, Vote #31, 2/26/2004;, H.R. 1997, 4/1/2004; Rep. Todd Akin Press Release, 2/25/2004; Washington Post, 8/20/2012]

HR 4818, Vote #542, 11.20.04

Ose Supported Spending Bill with Anti-Choice Gag Rule. In 2004, Ose voted in favor of an omnibus spending bill with a provision that would limit the ability of federal, state and local governments to require hospitals and health maintenance organizations to provide abortion services or referrals. [CQ Floor Votes, 11/20/04;, HR 4818, 12/8/2004]

The bill passed 344-51. [HR 4818, Vote #542, 11/20/04]

Planned Parenthood: Abortion Non-Discrimination Act Could "Gravely Hinder a Woman's Right to Choose." Planned Parenthood criticized the addition of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) to HR 4818. They cited the potential for the amendment to "gravely hinder a woman's right to choose." PPFA President Gloria Feldt stated:

This amendment's name makes it sound like it protects women who are seeking abortions from discrimination. In fact, it discriminates against them. It allows any health care provider or institution, religious or otherwise, to refuse to provide a much-needed reproductive health care service. The bill is not about religious freedom - there is no federal law that requires health care providers to perform abortions in the first place.

This amendment not only intrudes on private, personal medical decision making, but it also intrudes on state and local government rights. The vast majority of Americans oppose allowing health care entities to deny services to women, even if those entities claim their refusal is based on religious or moral grounds, which ANDA does not even require. This sweeping federal refusal clause will allow the whims of a corporate entity to trump the conscience and very real medical needs of women nationwide.

[PR Newswire, 11/22/2004]

NARAL: HR 4818 Is a "Backdoor Gag Rule" Passed Without Senate Approval. In 2004, NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized passage of HR 4818, which included a "Federal Refusal Clause" which, according to NARAL, "allows companies not to pay for abortions, counsel, or even refer women clients to another doctor. Further, the proposal strips funds from federal programs, or state or local governments, merely because they attempt to enforce their laws or policies." They further criticized the rider as a "backdoor gag rule" which became law without a single vote from the Senate. Elizabeth Cavendish, acting NARAL president at the time, stated:

This move highlights the true agenda of the far right, which controls Congress and the White House - eliminating a woman’s right to choose. However, they do so in a sneaky back-door fashion because they know the majority of Americans are pro-choice and would not stand for such infringements on their rights.

[NARAL, 11/19/2004]