July 6, 2019: Warren spoke at the Essence Festival in New Orleans, Louisiana.
July 5, 2019: Warren was among the 10 candidates who spoke at the Strong Public Schools Presidential Forum in Texas. Also that day, Warren wrote an op-ed in Essence and a Medium post introducing her plan to achieve pay equality for women of color. Her proposal focused on companies that contract with the federal government.
July 2, 2019: Warren opened a campaign office in Sioux City, Iowa. The Warren campaign had offices in seven other cities in the state at the time. Also that day, Warren campaigned in Las Vegas.
July 1, 2019: Vogue featured five of the six women running for president, including Warren, in a magazine story about the election. Also that day, Warren sent a letter to former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who left the agency in April, calling on him to resign from his new position on Pfizer's board.
June 29, 2019: Warren spoke at the Rainbow PUSH Convention in Chicago. Warren discussed her faith. Other participating candidates included Joe Biden, Bill de Blasio, and Pete Buttigieg.
S.Res.262 - A resolution affirming the importance of title IX, applauding the increase in educational opportunities available to all people, regardless of sex or gender, and recognizing the tremendous amount of work left to be done to further increase those opportunities.
Latest Action: Senate - 06/24/2019 Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.Tracker:
S.Res.260 - A resolution recognizing the importance of sustained United States leadership to accelerating global progress against maternal and child malnutrition and supporting the commitment of the United States Agency for International Development to global nutrition through the Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy.
Latest Action: Senate - 06/24/2019 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.Tracker:
S.1940 - A bill to permit legally married same-sex couples to amend their filing status for tax returns outside the statute of limitations.
Latest Action: Senate - 06/20/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.Tracker:
Elizabeth Warren (Democratic Party) is a member of the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. She assumed office on January 3, 2013. Her current term ends on January 3, 2025.
Warren (Democratic Party) ran for election for President of the United States.
Warren focused her campaign on economic issues, including proposing a wealth tax on the wealthiest 75,000 families to partially fund universal childcare, student loan debt relief, the Green New Deal, and Medicare for All. She ended her presidential campaign on March 5, 2020.
Warren's professional experience includes time in both the government and academic sectors. Prior to serving in the U.S. Senate, Warren helped establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Obama administration. She also served as the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program from 2008 to 2010.
Warren worked as a law professor for three decades at several universities, including the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University.
Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Warren is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning she will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.
Warren was born in 1949 and grew up in Oklahoma. She graduated from high school at age 16 and earned a B.S. in speech pathology in 1970 from the University of Houston. She earned her J.D. from Rutgers Law School. Warren taught at the University of Texas, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University. Warren also authored 11 books about the economy, the middle class, and personal finance.
In the mid-1990s, Warren served on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. In 1996, she changed her affiliation from Republican to Democratic.
In 2008, she was appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) to serve as the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, created during the economic recession to oversee the Treasury and evaluate market transparency. Warren left the role in 2010 to serve as a special adviser at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Obama administration.
Warren won the 2012 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts with 53 percent of the vote, defeating incumbent Scott Brown (R). She was the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate representing Massachusetts.
Below is an abbreviated outline of Warren's academic, professional, and political career:
Prior to entering politics, Warren was an elementary school teacher, lawyer, law professor and bankruptcy analyst.
Former Member, Economic Policy Subcommittee, United States Senate
Former Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, United States Senate
Former Member, Subcommittee on Energy, United States Senate
Former Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, United States Senate
Former Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining, United States Senate
Member, Armed Services
Member, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Member, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Member, Special Committee on Aging
Member, Subcommittee on Airland
Member, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection
Member, Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
Member, Subcommittee on Personnel
Member, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security
Member, Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment
Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
— Number of Grandchildren:
— Pets (include names):
An election for president of the United States will be held on November 3, 2020. Warren announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019. She ended her presidential campaign on March 5, 2020.
Incumbent Elizabeth Warren (D) defeated Geoff Diehl (R) and Shiva Ayyadurai (Independent) in the general election for U.S. Senate Massachusetts on November 6, 2018.
|Elizabeth Warren (D)||
|Geoff Diehl (R)||
|Shiva Ayyadurai (Independent)||
Total votes: 2,707,090
(100.00% precincts reporting)
Incumbent Elizabeth Warren advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Massachusetts on September 4, 2018.
|Elizabeth Warren (D)||
Total votes: 591,038
Geoff Diehl defeated John Kingston and Beth Lindstrom in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate Massachusetts on September 4, 2018.
|Geoff Diehl (R)||
|John Kingston (R)||
|Beth Lindstrom (R)||
Total votes: 260,372
Warren was a potential candidate for the office of President of the United States in 2016. After a lengthy November 2013 profile of Warren in The New Republic, rumors of a possible 2016 run began heating up. Despite Warren having been among a group of female Senate Democrats who wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton urging her to run, a former Warren aide said, "If Hillary or the man on the moon is not representing her stuff, and her people don’t have a seat at table, she’ll do what she can to make sure it’s represented. ...Yeah, Hillary is running. And she’ll probably win. But Elizabeth doesn’t care about winning. She doesn’t care whose turn it is."
Sixteen senators have been elected to the presidency, including President Barack Obama (D).
Warren ran in the 2012 election for the U.S. Senate, representing Massachusetts. She ran unopposed on the Democratic ticket. The signature filing deadline for candidates was June 5, 2012. She defeated incumbent Scott Brown, who was seeking re-election on the Republican ticket. The general election took place on November 6, 2012.
U.S. Senate, Massachusetts General Election, 2012
|Republican||Scott Brown Incumbent||45.8%||1,458,048|
|Source: Massachusetts Secretary of State "Return of Votes"|
Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
1. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
2. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Unknown Position
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
Do you support increasing defense spending?
Dear Dr. Redfield, We write to express significant concern regarding the recent decline in routine childhoodimmunization rates in the United States during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic,and urge you to take immediate action to encourage and support routine pediatric immunizationsthrough the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to recent data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), adecline in provider orders for non-influenza childhood vaccines, and measles-containingvaccines including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, began one week after PresidentTrump declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. InMay, the Michigan Care Improvement Registry found a drastic decrease in vaccination ratesamong children across nearly every age group. The percentage of children five months andyounger who remain up-to-date on recommended vaccines declined from 67.9 percent in 2019,to 49.7 percent in May 2020. The New York City health department reported a 63 percent dropin the number of vaccine doses administered to children between March 23 and May 9, includinga 91 percent drop for children ages 2 and above. The administration of routine pediatric immunizations remains critical throughout the duration ofthis public health emergency. The decline in immunizations is largely attributable to efforts byfamilies to adhere to social distancing guidelines to reduce both their exposure to, and the spreadof COVID-19. But if this trend of decreased immunization rates among children continues, theUnited States could face yet another public health crisis: increased risk of outbreaks of vaccinepreventable diseases. Such outbreaks would put lives at risk, and place additional stress on our health care system and public health infrastructure at a time when these systems are struggling torespond to the COVID-19 pandemic. To avoid this potential crisis, we urge the CDC to immediately develop an action plan thatincorporates targeted public outreach and education efforts on addressing vaccine hesitancy andemphasizing the importance of pediatric immunizations; resources for communities that haveseen reductions in their immunization rates since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; andguidance for parents and families on how to safely access pediatric immunizations during theCOVID-19 pandemic, including best practices regarding personal protective equipment (PPE)use and other precautions to limit the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in health care settings; andnecessary efforts to ensure rapid catch-up for children who are not up to date on critical pediatricvaccines. In addition to developing the plans described above, we request that you respond to the followingquestions no later than July 1, 2020 to help us better understand how the federal government isworking to address the alarming drop in pediatric immunization rates: 1. What specific steps is CDC taking to reverse the dramatic drop in vaccinations since midMarch?a. How does CDC plan to capture accurate real-time data on pediatric immunizationrates and identify potential solutions, particularly in vulnerable communities? 2. What outreach and education efforts are underway at CDC to address fears amongparents and families related to bringing children into health care settings during theCOVID-19 crisis?a. Is CDC planning a public information campaign to address vaccine hesitancy, andif so, how will CDC ensure that the necessary communication on the importanceof routine immunizations is reaching parents and families?b. How will CDC ensure that families receive guidance on safe access to care forchildren during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the appropriate use of PPE?c. How will CDC communicate with health care workers, and provide the necessarytools to inform communities about the importance of receiving pediatricimmunizations during the COVID-19 pandemic?d. What guidance is CDC providing to pediatricians and other health care workerson procedures to ensure that they can safely provide and promote routine pediatricimmunizations?e. Given the significant increase in unemployment due to COVID-19, many familiesare finding themselves uninsured. How will CDC raise awareness of the Vaccinesfor Children (VFC) program to ensure that families know their children can stillaccess routine immunizations, and how does CDC plan to support participatingVFC providers as they work to catch up VFC-eligible children on missedvaccinations, while also preparing for the upcoming flu season? 3. How will CDC monitor the ongoing availability and ordering of pediatric immunizations,including doses and other essential medical devices, PPE, and other supplies needed tostore, transport and administer vaccines, and what plans are in place to address anysupply chain disruptions?a. Is CDC taking steps now to ensure that the availability of pediatricimmunizations, and necessary medical devices and supplies, is not impacted whenproduction and domestic distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine is underway?4. Has CDC developed or reviewed modeling or projections that predict the potential impacton future vaccine-preventable outbreaks if the current pediatric immunization ratecontinues throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic?5. Does CDC require additional resources from Congress in order to support efforts toreverse the decline in pediatric immunizations? If so, what level of funding would besufficient? We appreciate your timely response and look forward to working with you on this critical issue.
Only available in PDF format; please see source to view document.
Dear Secretary Azar, We write to express our deep concern about the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS or the Department) intent to finalize the proposed rule (RIN 0945-AA11) implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including, but not limited to, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, and gender identity), age, disability, and language proficiency in any health care program or facility that receives federal funding. The misguided changes in the proposed rule would gravely undermine health care anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQIA+ people, women, people with limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, and others, including those who face multiple forms of discrimination. While these policy changes would be harmful at any time, finalizing this proposed rule during the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic will reduce vulnerable communities' access to health care services in the middle of a global health emergency. The Department should be focused on helping people obtain the health care they need, not on helping others discriminate against patients and deny them that care. We strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed rule. In 2019, HHS undertook a harmful and unlawful rewrite of the implementing regulations for Section 1557 of the ACA. HHS recently submitted the final rule for review by the Office of Management and Budget, indicating HHS may have immediate plans to publish the rule. Specifically, the proposed rule hinders the administrative enforcement of protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The proposed rule would unlawfully incorporate an exemption to the ACA's protection against sex discrimination, targeting patients who will need abortion care. The proposed rule would also reduce patients' access to critical health care information in their primary language, weaken requirements for accommodations for people with disabilities, deprive patients of notice of their right to file a grievance, create confusion around appropriate legal standards and available remedies for claims involving intersectional discrimination, and could purport to exempt many health care programs from the law altogether. The proposed policy changes would falsely suggest to health care providers and insurers that they can refuse to care for LGBTQIA+ patients -- including testing and treatment for COVID-19 -- based on who they are. The LGBTQIA+ community already experiences severe discrimination in health care, and finalizing this rule as proposed would heighten existing barriers to care during a public health emergency. According to one study, eight percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults and 29 percent of transgender adults report a health care provider had refused them service due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Another study found that 28 percent of transgender or gender nonconforming people had postponed medical care due to discrimination and disrespect. The sudden uptick in at-home deaths in COVID-19 hot spots indicates how dangerous it can be for people with severe cases of COVID-19 to delay seeking care. If HHS finalizes this proposed rule, members of the LGBTQIA+ community suffering from COVID-19 -- especially people who are transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming -- may face significant barriers to timely care. In addition to existing barriers to care, this proposed rule would be especially harmful for the LGBTQIA+ community given the health disparities it already faces and the additional risks created by the COVID-19 pandemic. One study found that members of the LGBTQIA+ community report more chronic conditions and are more likely to rate their health as poor compared to heterosexual individuals. HIV/AIDS disproportionately impacts members of the LGBTQIA+ community, especially those from communities of color. Additionally, LGBTQIA+ adults are more likely to live in poverty and are over twice as likely to be uninsured compared to other adults. All of these factors pose risks for members of the LGBTQIA+ community during this public health emergency. The proposed rule has wide-ranging and harmful implications beyond the efforts to undercut protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The proposed rule attempts to create broad religious exemptions and unlawfully incorporates the Danforth Amendment and the religious exemption from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Additionally, the Department refused to clarify in the proposed rule whether it would enforce protections against discrimination because someone is miscarrying a pregnancy or seeking care after having an abortion. This could embolden providers to turn away patients who have had abortions, who are pregnant and unmarried, or who are seeking miscarriage management care. Without administrative enforcement of these protections, women with limited options for health care, particularly those who already face barriers to care, including Black women, indigenous women, and other communities of color, as well as those who live in rural or underserved areas, could face additional barriers to accessing health care. The proposed rule seeks to weaken requirements that health care providers take reasonable steps to provide access for patients with limited English proficiency, such as including taglines on written documents and posting notices about the availability of interpreters. The proposed rule also sought comments on several proposals to weaken protections for people with disabilities. For example, HHS requested comments on a proposal to exempt small entities from a requirement to provide auxiliary aids and services to people with disabilities. As a result, patients with limited English proficiency and patients with disabilities could be erroneously denied equal opportunity to access information about their own health and health care decisions. Patients deserve to know their rights and to receive services without discrimination, both during the COVID-19 public health emergency and at all other times. However, this proposed rule seeks to significantly reduce the number of insurance plans and federal health programs that must comply with the ACA's anti-discrimination provisions. The proposed rule also would eliminate the requirement that health care providers notify patients of their right to receive services without discrimination and the process for filing a grievance if they do face discrimination. Anti-discrimination protections are not meaningful if patients do not know their rights. Undermining health care anti-discrimination protections at any time is cruel, but to do so now will have deadly consequences for some of the populations that are most vulnerable during this pandemic. Congress designed Section 1557 of the ACA to expand--not reduce--access to comprehensive health care for all people. By moving away from the express intent of Congress, these policy changes will cause real harm to our most vulnerable patients. We urge you to abandon this effort and instead focus on ensuring all Americans can access the health care they need during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter.