In her last run for the Virginia Senate in 1999, Jane Maddux was asked about her positions on reproductive health care policies.

Here is what ran in C-Ville Weekly at the time (Barbara Rich, C-Ville Weekly, April 6-12, 1999):

"It's something of a surprise to learn that [Jane] Maddux - unlike many in her party - is not pro-life on abortion. 'Constitutionally, the law is on the books, and we can't change it on the state level. Every circumstance [connected with abortion] has its own set of difficulties, and decisions which must be made. I have a 26-year-old daughter. If she came to me with this issue, I feel I would want her to have a choice. I don't believe in government being involved in the abortion issue; it should be between the woman and her God and the people close to her.'

But she notes that she opposes partial-birth abortions and supports the parental notification bill, which was passed this year by the General Assembly.

Had she been a member of the legislature this year, would she have voted for the 24-hour-waiting period for abortions and regulations for abortion clinics? Maddux chooses to respond to the last part of the question first.

'I cannot imagine voting for abortion clinics having additional regulations; they now have enough to bring them up to the necessary standards. As for the 24-hour waiting period, I don't know all the details. Anyway, this should be kept out of politics; it's a moral issue'."

Here is what ran in The Daily Progress at the time (Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, April 29, 2001):

Jane Maddux said "that her position includes support of a ban of all so-called 'partial birth' abortion and backing of parental notification before a teen-aged girl can have an abortion.

'I do not have any intention of going to Richmond to try to change Roe versus Wade,' the U.S. Supreme Court ruling spelling out abortion rights, Maddux said."

So how does Jane Maddux view reproductive health care legislation now and how do her views compare with the views of Democratic nominee for the 25th Senate District Creigh Deeds [who like Jane Maddux has opposed so-called 'partial birth' abortion and supported parental notification in the past]?

For example:

1. Would she support a statutory requirement that parents must consent for a minor to obtain an abortion, when the current law already requires parents to be involved through a notification process?

2. Would she support a requirement that health insurance plans include coverage for prescription contraceptives, where insurers are presently only required to make it available to plans?

3. Would she support laws that would require a level of regulation to medical practices offering abortions that is above that required of practices performing other kinds of medical procedures?

[Her past comments above stating "I cannot imagine voting for abortion clinics having additional regulations; they now have enough to bring them up to the necessary standards" would suggest that she would not be in favor of additional levels of regulations.]

According to Bob Gibson's column in the November 18, 2001 edition of The Daily Progress, Walter Longyear sent out an e-mail in which he referred to Maddux as 'pro-abortion.' In what way were Jane Maddux's positions twisted by this e-mail? Where does Jane Maddux stand now on reproductive choice?

Ask her yourself on the campaign trail.

Then please send your thoughts to george@loper.org where the most representative comments will be placed on my web site with full attribution.