Senate debates abortion bill that would limit third-trimester access
Republicans seek to frame debate in unsympathetic light as Democrats explain complexity of proposed bill.
(Democratic House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer)
Much news has been breaking this week since Donald Trump took office. That’s not surprising, but I’ll try to catch my readers up with some bulletins.
U.S. Senate attempts to pass Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
On Wednesday, Republican North Dakota Sen. John Thune introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
“When the supposed right to kill unborn babies starts motivating you to vote against protections for born babies, perhaps you should start questioning the whole abortion project,” Thune said on the Senate Floor.
Republicans have sought to invoke cloture, which requires a two-thirds vote to overcome any filibuster put forth by the opposition party to a bill. The Hill published an article that said it was mostly done to force Democrats to argue for abortion rights in a debate framed to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke against the bill. He said that the bill targets abortions when they may be medically necessary due to complications.
“The scenario targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter, the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy,” Sen. Schumer said. “And at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals, and the wishes of millions of families, and allows ultra-right ideology to dictate what they do.”
New Hampshire
New Hampshire’s state legislature held a hearing on a bill that punishes people who help minors get an abortion without parental permission. They classify it as a misdemeanor offense, but if the same person helps more minors, it gets bumped into a felony. It calls for civil and criminal penalties. The father of the child may sue under the bill.
Reproductive Equity Now President Rebecca Hart Holder released the following statement before the hearing.
“Travel bans are about one thing: control. Controlling our bodies, movements, and freedoms. Travel bans are the next step in anti-abortion extremists’ playbook to make essential reproductive health care unattainable, especially for young people. Despite their false claims, “abortion trafficking” simply does not exist,” Hart Holder said.
“These lies are an anti-abortion attempt to sow fear and chaos, while stigmatizing abortion care. New Hampshire—a state that celebrates personal freedoms—should not be in the business of surveilling or policing the movement of its citizens, nor should it seek to infringe upon their constitutional rights. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee should move to defeat this bill immediately.
Hart Holder said that if it were passed, they would challenge it in court.
“While bans like these have been passed by anti-abortion legislators in Idaho and Tennessee, because of ongoing legal challenges, neither bill has gone into full effect. New Hampshire voters should see this bill for what it really is: a reckless and costly attempt to strip freedom away from Granite Staters.”
Virginia
As expected, Virginia’s state house passed its resolution to protect abortion rights. It now heads to the State Senate, where it will likely get through. That sets the stage for a ballot initiative to pass. Under its constitutional amendment process, one more resolution has to be passed after this year’s state legislative races.
It wasn’t without acrimony. According to the Virginia Mercury, Republicans wanted to insert language for parental consent in the amendment. Another point of debate dealt with third-trimester abortions. With the current law, women need to get permission from three doctors to get a procedure at that stage. With this proposed amendment, the number of medical opinions required will be reduced from three to one.
I spoke to Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, last week about it.
‘The language that is being proposed would put Virginia in line with other states,” Lockhart said. “Even Texas only requires one doctor to determine if a patient's life or health is at risk. And we know that Virginia's three-doctor law is outdated. It puts patients' health at risk, especially in areas of the state facing shortages of healthcare providers.”