House passes 20-week abortion ban
The House passed a bill Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks.
The bill , sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would make it a crime to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the possibility of a fine, up to five years in prison or both.
The measure passed heavily along party lines, 237-189.
The bill allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman and wouldn't penalize women for seeking to get abortions after 20 weeks.
The legislation is likely to face a tough sell in the Senate. A similar bill passed the House in 2015 but was blocked by Senate Democrats.
With only a 52-seat majority it would be unlikely Senate Republicans could gather the 60 votes needed to move the legislation to President Trump's desk.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday he would reintroduce a companion bill in the Senate soon.
The White House said Monday that it "strongly supports" the bill and "applauds the House of Representatives for continuing its efforts to secure critical pro-life protections."
The bill is a top priority of anti-abortion groups, which argue a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation and later.
"It’s past time for Congress to pass a nationwide law protecting unborn children from the unspeakable cruelty of late-term abortion," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group in D.C.
Abortion rights groups, however, have condemned the bill.
“The agenda behind this bill is clear: to shame women and to ban safe, legal abortion," said Dana Singiser, vice president for government relations and public policy for Planned Parenthood.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
This should have been added above:
Who says Congress cant get anything done?
Let's get the senate to pass it too.
And it is dead in the Senate, good job Ryan! Seems passing pointless legislation that has zero chance of becoming law is about the only thing you are good at as the speaker.
Optics to their base is everything
Even if it did become law, it would almost certainly be challenged as unconstitutional.
More than likely. Their biggest problem is that they would be arguing they should be banned at this point due to the fetus being able to feel pain, even though there is a consensus among doctors and scientists that the earliest they can begin to feel pain is about 27 weeks. The nervous system's ability to transmit and the brain ability to interpret pain signals doesn't develop until then. Essentially their arguments would be based on a provable lie, and I feel like the Justices take their duties seriously and would probably take offense to the argument. Well, most of them at least.
I don't think this is the first time the fetal pain point has been brought up either. Anti-abortionists will try and repeat any tactic. At least they're consistent.
Link please
At five months a woman can feel the baby's movements. It is like a butterfly moving across the abdomen. Truly a wonderful feeling. Usually, a woman knows she is pregnant by three months, so, if at all possible the abortion should be done then. My opinion has nothing to do with a life and death situation.
Liberals believe that abortion is OK right up to the expected date of delivery.
Why can't it be done way earlier??
Who says that exactly? Or are you simply lying for...reasons?
It is! Most abortions are performed within the 1st trimester, long before viability is even reached.
Gordy, we don't call each other liars... CoC thing. D.
Go back and read post 4.1.1
Or are you simply lying for...reasons?
Remember the Code of Conduct
Vic, we don't call each other liars... Per CoC. D.
Personal attacks drown out your comment. If what you have to say is important enough to use the keyboard it shouldn't be destroyed because you want to take a shot at someone. This isn't the vine! Decide what is more important. Your thoughts on the topic or a personal attack.
It wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of fact! I simply called him out on it. But I notice you don't say anything when Rex made a dishonest and potentially libelous statement. Interesting.
That was not a personal attack aimed at you. It was a blanket statement. You should rebut the statement with facts that prove the statement wrong instead of going on a personal attack and name calling.
This isn't the vine! That stuff won't fly here!
Awww! Too cute!
"viability" argument
The law must remain flexible enough to deal with cases like rape and incest. However, in most cases viability is the only reasonable guideline. As medical advances shifts the viability date, then the law must take this into account. I'm all for female control of their reproductive system, but there has to be legal limits, and people have to take responsibility for their actions. Yes, this also includes men.
I have told many of them that it isn't a puppy being killed.
I have always spoiled my nieces and nephews. I am finishing a St Croix fly rod to give to one and have finished a Rainshadow for another one.
Do you know what viability means?
You're being quite cavalier considering all of the posible physical and mental effects of premature births between 23 and 27 weeks.
Your cousin and his wife obviously wanted a child. Hopefully, they are well insured and will not have to go into bankruptcy because of the hundreds of thousands of hospital costs it has taken to allow their child the reach viability.
You are correct, I was thinking of forcible incest rather than consensual.
It should be noted that marrying your 1st cousin is legal in Britain.
Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide , they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders.
So yes, I'd also like to see it made illegal.
It can also lead to people putting the brakes on advancement in neonatal care ( treatment and technology ) to keep the limbo bar of law where it is indefinitely.
Yes it could, but at this point in time it hasn't happened. I fully accept that progress has almost ceased over the last decade or so, we may be reaching the limit at our present level of technology.
I think all Sci-Fi options should be taken off the table until our morality catches up to our technology
Unfortunately I doubt that's going to happen, given the choice I believe humans will always open Pandora's jar.
I personally believe only in cases of the life of the mother should abortion be allowed. This would cover cases where there is a physical or mental risk of death for the mother. It would allow for a victim of rape to get an abortion, but only with the recommendation of a psychiatrist (which could also be used to help her through the trauma of her attack).
I'm making no attempt to answer the morality of abortion, given the infant mortality rates in the West most of these terminations would survive. At best my position is a fudge.
In the end, laws should not be based off my opinion, or any one person's opinion, but by the consensus of the community (state/nation) .
So just how much is a life worth?
Well in this case, if they have insurance coverage, whatever their co-pay and deductible happens to be.
If they aren't the taxpayer will get the bill after they go bankrupt. Add to that the ongoing medical care that premature babies entail. My sister's first child was a 28 week premie and Medicaid paid for everything. At 42, my niece still needs medical care and is still on Medicaid. My sister's third child was a 30 week premie and needed ear tubes and respiratory care into her teenage years, again all through Medicaid. My grand niece's second daughter, who is now two and a ward of the court, was a 28 week premie and the cycle continues.
Life is priceless!
Tell that to your 'consevative' leaders who intent to eviscerate Medicaid.
They want to put millions of 'priceless' lives at risk, over 30 million of whom are children, so that they can give the top 1% an unneeded tax break.
She was lucky! I'm sure every effort was made to save the baby! That is what happens here in KY-- only if continuing the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother are late term labor inductions done. Or the baby is delivered via C-section.
I was there and lived through it. So did my son.
Nobody is doing that. The only difference between the dems and reps is how much to spend on it.
Judging from the fact that the post has remained up for over two days, it looks like it does.
BTW, I is my understanding that one is supposed to flag a post that they believe is a violation and refrain from commenting about the violation, allowing mods and the RA to deal with the issue. Why aren't you following those instructions?
I guess it's the old teacher in me. I believe that being informed is the best way to make decisions. I was offering you a courtesy but since you don't want it I will not let it happen again.
That's quite a cavalier response. How much to spend is the decision between life and death.
Almost half of the LIVE births in the US are covered by Medicaid. That includes pre and post natal care.
Someone here said that 'life is priceless!". Oh ya, that was YOU.
Over 30 million children and over 10 million disabled are currently on Medicaid. If your 'conservative' leaders get their way, over $500 BILLION will be removed from Medicaid and transferred to tax breaks for the rich. What's left will be 'block granted' to the states so that Governors will decide who lives and who dies...
Here are some facts-- one must be 16-17 weeks pregnant to have the amniocentesis to determine if the baby has genetic defects, and takes 4 weeks to get the results back. So, 20 weeks is too soon, and why don't they go for 24 weeks? SOME babies do well when born at 26 weeks, and others do not... I had to take steroids to make sure my son's lungs were developed at 36 weeks, and it was iffy, as I kept getting sicker and sicker.
That's one hell of proclamation. Got anything to back it up?
Yes, MY 'Liberal' leaders are adverse to demanding that the 30 million children of Medicaid 'get a job'.
Perhaps you'd like to block quote my post that infer that in any way...
You are the one who conflated premature birth with late term abortions. Of course, they are two COMPLETELY different issues but seem to think that comparing them makes your point...
Hyperbole!
Tell me what legislation was proposed to end medicaid! Who are the sponsors? What is the bill number?
Obviously, your definition of 'living outside the womb' is subjective.
Babies can survive outside the womb at 22-23 weeks.
Pretty much the entire civilized world bans abortion after 20 weeks.
Some babies born at 26 weeks live, but many do not. I don't know the odds of survival, but my son had about a 75% survival rate when he was born at 36 weeks-- the steroids I took made that 97%.
Is it infanticide if the fetus has a condition that will cost Medicaid millions of dollars in hospital visits and surgeries?
I wasn't - that was Gordy's comment - I repeated it but forgot to present it as such
Thanks, I was confused. No violation was noted, anyway. D.
"Most" probably covers over 50%. From the CDC (2009): "46.5% of adolescents aged <15 years and 54.3% of adolescents aged 15–19 years obtained an abortion by ≤8 weeks' gestation, 62.1%–71.2% of women aged ≥20 years obtained an abortion by this point in gestation ."
Usually medical reasons. But individual states also have some say as to when they can limit abortion.
Congratulations.
That's too funny. The left's argument is based on the law and individual liberty and rights. If anything, it's the right that uses emotion: "It's a baby," or "abortion is murder," ect..
"pro-abortionist" is a disingenuous term. Who's "pro-abortion" exactly?
If an infant is killed after birth, then it's infanticide!
And that statement would be wrong!
You weren't offering me anything. Your comment was to Gordy.
Perhaps if you really want to teach us something, you could lead by example and follow the instructions about flagging what you consider CoC violations.
You shall get your wish.
First of all, all states have some type of restriction or specific restrictions to abortion after a certain gestational age. Abortions after viability are done for medical reasons, or other extenuating circumstance.
Secondly, Sandy Hook and the gun debate is a Red Herring. Stay on topic!
Third, "pro-abortion" is not an accurate term. Who is "pro-abortion" exactly? Equating pro abortion with chick is willfully disingenuous. Choice is about allowing the woman to choose for herself whether she wants an abortion or NOT. No one is telling her she must have an abortion nor forcing her to.
Fourth, if a fetus is not yet born or delivered, then it's not a baby, period! Look up the definition of a fetus. Aborting an embryo/fetus is neither "baby killing" or murder. It's also not infanticide either. Look up the definition of infanticide while you're at it! And abortion is not legally equated or designated as murder. So saying abortion is murder is just false!
As far as your "soul searching" comment, now that is an appeal to emotion. And regardless of your views on abortion, whether someone chooses to have an abortion or not is really none of your, nor anyone else's business!
Typo (or bad autocorrect). It should be "choice."
No. You are simply making a broad generalization, and because of that you are automatically wrong. I am a liberal and I do not think abortions should be performed right up until the delivery date. So much for your "argument".
Hillary Clinton does and she could have been President
How old are you?
Except the quote that you copied and pasted doesn't say that. The bill in question DID NOT allow for the life and health of the mother and THAT is why Clinton voted nay.
Here is the part of the quote that you want to ignore:
The mother's life is a good exception. Health gets a little murky though. Does not feeling good about oneself count as a health exception?
Go read the legislation and find out for yourself. I'm pretty sure that the patient and her doctor make that decision. The FACT is that the instances of post 26 weeks abortion are rare. Most women who carry a pregnancy that far do so because they WANT to have a baby. It is a tragedy if they and their doctor have to make a choice between endangering the mother and carrying to full term. But they should have that choice.
No. Some women become so ill they're in danger of stroking out, etc. Pregnancy is very hard on women's bodies. Some women get sick. That's a fact.
And the doctor with a financial incentive to abort and a woman who wants to abort are not going to find a reason?
That is a valid medical reason.
Doctors make a lot more money delivering a baby that aborting a late term baby. At least here, in KY, it has to be for a provable health reason, for either the mother or the child.. So, I'm not seeing the motivation to abort.
Until you've lived through the choice, you have no idea how heartbreaking it can be. My son was born at 36 weeks-- plenty early! I was in the hospital for 4 weeks before he was born. He was WANTED, LONGED FOR, and we were unusually blessed!
When I had my son, via C-section, my BP was 190/120. Definitely stroke endangering... Kidneys were beginning to fail, etc. I wanted my son more than anything and prayed every day he would be born healthy. He is now 19 years old, and still the light of my life.
I should have said abortion doctors instead of doctors in general.
Well since the freaking legislation relies solely on the determination of a doctor for the gestational age of a fetus, YA, you're just going to have to trust a doctors decision.
but with a medical reason the doctor can abort any time up until natural delivery.
Hey, I didn't write the legislation. If not a doctors decision, exactly what alternative do you suggest, flipping a coin? 'Activist' judges?
Neither did I.
But, will they? I don't believe they will abort, but they may induce labor early. And then, try to save the baby. Big difference.