Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
AttemptedReproductive Rights

Vote against any national abortion ban and support a federal law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

AttemptedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 85%

Both prongs advanced but neither enacted. PRONG 1 (vote against a national abortion ban): Confirmed via clerk.house.gov XML that on H.R. 26 (Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) Roll Call #29 on Jan 11 2023, Gluesenkamp Perez voted NAY on final passage (220-210). (Prior rating cited Roll #28 motion-to-recommit, where she voted YEA — same anti-bill direction, but the correct citation is Roll #29 final passage.) PRONG 2 (federal law guaranteeing abortion access): Confirmed via Congress.gov bill text XML for 119th Cong. H.R. 12 (Women's Health Protection Act of 2025), sponsored by Rep. Judy Chu, that 'Ms. Perez' with bioguide name-id G000600 (= Marie Gluesenkamp Perez) is among the 200+ cosponsors. Her official House.gov press release confirms she helped reintroduce the Protecting Reproductive Freedom Act to protect FDA authority over mifepristone. She is one of many cosponsors, not a lead sponsor, so this does not rise to CHAMPIONED; but she has done more than a single supporting vote, so it is above IGNORED. No national abortion ban has been enacted for her to face a full-passage test. ATTEMPTED (+0.25) is the correct label. Revising to fix the vote citation.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →