Congress Introduces A National Abortion Ban On Its Very First Day Back

[riversedge]

Source: ThinkProgress.org




Congress Introduces A National Abortion Ban On Its Very First Day Back

by Tara Culp-Ressler Posted on January 7, 2015 at 11:36 am
13,201Share This 937Tweet This




House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio administers a re-enactment of the House oath to Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio administers a re-enactment of the House oath to Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

CREDIT: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin



.............On Tuesday, the very first day of the 114th Congress, two lawmakers introduced a measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks, in direct violation of the protections afforded under Roe v. Wade. Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reintroduced the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the same legislation that successfully passed the House last year.
.............

“In a Republican Senate, under my leadership, we would have the kind of real debate on the issues that the American people want,” Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told the audience at the National Right to Life Conference in the fall. “For six years, the president has been isolated from this growing movement. He will be forced to listen to the cause that’s brought us all here this morning.”

These type of abortion bans are often called “fetal pain” measures because they’re based on the notion that fetuses are sentient after 20 weeks of pregnancy, assuming that an abortion procedure after that point would be painful for them. In a statement released on Tuesday, Franks referred to 20-week fetuses as “innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia.”

In fact, doctors agree that fetuses cannot survive outside the womb until about 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy, which is considered to be the legal point of viability. At less than 21 weeks, no delivered baby has ever survived. Plus, scientific research has repeatedly confirmed that fetuses cannot feel pain until after they are viable; indeed, even the researchers who are trying to learn more about fetal pain don’t want their findings to be used to justify abortion bans. ............

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/

---

There IS a difference between Republicans and Democrats

#WarOnWomen

[Arkansas Granny]

1. Just as we expected. They can't wait to get control over women and their bodies, even if they have

to tell lies to do so. But, we already know that Republicans have a very casual acquaintance with facts.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. What is it about Republicans that makes them think this way?

Oh how I wish they would all finally STFU!

[uppityperson]

2. Fundamentalists deserve the hell they fear. eom

[Demoiselle]

26. Yes.

[George II]

3. While I'm opposed to any ban on abortions, the headline is false.....

....the legislation is NOT a "National Abortion Ban", its a ban on abortions after the fetus is 20 weeks old.

The headline is needlessly sensational and incorrect.

[beaglelover]

13. Agree.

I would also never restrict a woman's right to an abortion, but I'd sure hope abortions after 20 weeks are few and far between. Unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or there is something terribly wrong with the fetus.

[Hekate]

18. Trust women and doctors, and you won't have to hedge your words.

I used to hedge my words to avoid giving offense, and you know what? Over the years it has become as plain as day that the anti-choicers want to ban ALL abortions at every stage and for every reason, including the life and health of the mother. It has also become plain that they want to ban most forms of contraception.

So stop hedging your words, because they don't hedge their behavior. Women are more than half the human race. Trust us a adults and as moral agents of our own lives.

Thanks.

[brer cat]

20. +1 nt

[enlightenment]

25. Very, very well put.

Thanks, Hekate.

Whenever I see, "I support abortion, but . . ." I put the person in the same category as one who says, "I oppose the death penalty, but . . .". That "but" in the second clause cancels out the first clause.

[LincolnsLeftHand]

30. Well

I support the right to choice and I also support the thought that at some point there are reasonable restrictions on that right, such as restricting abortions once the fetus is viable (which I believe comports with Roe). I also support the death penalty in certain cases, so there's that.

[enlightenment]

33. Okay.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm glad you are clear on where you stand.

[brett_jv]

55. I also agree ...

I'd be okay with legal limits on abortions past the point of viability ... I could see my clear on a law that requires some evidence of a woman's life being in danger (or of serious abnormalities of the fetus) in order to receive an abortion past, say 24 weeks i.e. the medically accepted minimum age of viability.

I'd call such laws a 'reasonable compromise' ... but the anti-choicer's aren't looking for one of those ...

i.e. I'm not sure I'd 'want' such a law passed under prevailing conditions, BUT ... if it was passed in the spirit of compromise and would make the anti-choices people back the hell off the whole matter for good ... I could accept it then.

[Hekate]

61. "Legal limits" were written into Roe vs Wade from its inception.

The anti-choice movement has been very successful in promulgating a number of lies, among them the notion that there are are "no limits" on abortion.

There are, and they followed the social mores of millennia, rather than restrictions invented by men.

First trimester: no restrictions at all. In terms understood from previous centuries, that would be "restoration of the menses" or similar language. No business of men, strictly a woman's business.

Second trimester: increasing restrictions may be applied by the states. In previous centuries, this was considered the time of "quickening" when the fetus could first be felt to move. A woman would soon begin to "show." It has been known since the dawn of time that a miscarried fetus at this stage could not live, and so Roe used the terms viable and non-viable. Medically, it becomes more difficult for the doctor, as well.

Aside: the hopes of grieving parents and the advances of science have pushed the envelope of viability, but the chances of a good quality of life are still very iffy for micro-preemies. Still, this has given a new wedge for anti-choicers who want you to believe that a four to five month fetus is a Gerber Baby with chubby cheeks and a soccer team in its future.

Third trimesters: the most restrictions apply. The fetus now looks like a baby and has a good chance at life. Unless, of course, it doesn't. The number of late term abortions is vanishingly rare, and always involve some form of medical emergency. Babies do die in utero and must be extracted if the mother's body doesn't expel it on its own. Mothers have been known to die from pregnancy, and if their life can be saved, imo it should be. Some fetuses have deformities that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly -- the brain is literally missing, and without the womb's life support system it dies within a week of birth. The surgery is difficult for doctors and dangerous for women.

As I say, the anti-choice movement has been very successful in promulgating certain lies.

[Chemisse]

56. I disagree.

I support abortion BUT I really think women should make that choice and get it done well before 20 weeks gestation.

But there is no room for gray in this debate, because the anti-abortion people want to ban it all. And if they could, they would probably go after birth control next.

Just because they are obsessive though, and have black and white thinking, doesn't mean we can't acknowledge there are gray areas, even as we resist any change in existing law.

[enlightenment]

60. Thank you for the polite

reply.

I believe it is the woman's choice, and the law should be unrestricted - because otherwise, at some point, it is no longer her choice. Whether or not I would personally choose (short of a medical reason) to abort after 20 weeks has nothing to do with my belief that abortion should not be restricted by arbitrary dates. Medical science keeps advancing and today fetuses that are not viable - defined as an ability to survive on their own outside the womb - are being kept alive that 20 years ago wouldn't have been considered even remotely worth the effort. As the point of "potential" retreats, so will the argument of when is "too late to abort" advance.

Given that, I made the decision to separate the issue of viability from my position on the legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

I understand your position, but please understand that my thinking is anything but black and white. It comes from long consideration of those gray areas and a decision to take what many consider an extreme view, but I see as a logical one, divorced from individual circumstance. What women do personally should not - in my opinion - be a consideration when determining their collective right to abortion on demand.

[Chemisse]

62. As my repugnance toward second trimester abortions increases with the passing weeks of gestation,

so does that of the woman. No matter how indifferent she may be at the start of the pregnancy, by 20 weeks she is in the midst of a flood of bodily changes that promote the tendency to err on the side of going to term, (which is one reason why I think 20-week abortions are uncommon events).

If it is left up to the woman and her doctor, they will take into consideration the approaching viability, the pros and cons of any health issues that are in play, and make a decision that makes sense in that particular situation.

But these are the unusual cases. So while I say, "BUT I really think women should make that choice and get it done well before 20 weeks gestation," that is actually what is happening. Most abortions are done in the first trimester. Women who want to abort are generally in a big hurry to do so.

Right-wingers are notorious for screaming about problems that don't even exist, and it's easy to fall into their trap. If women were waiting til 20 weeks to have abortions - en masse - then maybe we would have something to debate. But even then, I would favor some kind of public service education about the safety of early abortions, over a change in law.

[enlightenment]

64. I think

that most women in the situation make wise choices. I choose to leave it at that and not second-guess why any woman might delay terminating a pregnancy. My personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

I don't think women have abortions for fun, any more than anyone - male or female - undergoes a medical procedure for fun. So my only concern is that it remain legal, safe, easily obtainable, and unrestricted.

[Control-Z]

52. Thank you, Hekate.

I could not have said it better.

[ismnotwasm]

57. +1000

[Fred Sanders]

14. Needlessly sensational headlines that link to the same needlessly sensational headline are OK at DU.

[joshcryer]

34. Roe v. Wade already bans it at 22 weeks for all intents.

They're trying to codify into law at what stage it is banned as opposed to leaving it up to doctors (and patients). No doctor and patient will terminate a viable, regular, pregnancy with a fetus that can survive outside of the womb.

[lancer78]

37. I agree as well

Most European countries ban abortion after 20 weeks except in special cases.

[nomorenomore08]

41. You know what leads to more later-term abortions? Making it more difficult to get one in the first

place. Whereas being able to access the procedure in a timely fashion, makes it more likely that the woman will terminate the pregnancy earlier on - which also involves less risk and discomfort for her.

I'm not lecturing you, or anyone else, just making a point for the sake of the thread.

[nichomachus]

4. Glad to hear it

As long as they're wasting time on crap like this -- which will never happen -- they're not doing damage in other areas.

[PatrynXX]

5. nothing new here.

yawn. cause american united you know to have republicans to create jobs and work on the econo... wait a min

[C Moon]

6. They'll get all the controversial /scary crap out of the way early, so it won't

be remembered by 2016.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. +1. Not like the Media ever holds the GOP responsible for any of its reprehensible behavior. Nope.

No way.

[Burf-_-]

7. Fuck these fuckin....

moronic fucking scum fuck assholes.

[Journeyman]

11. Thanks for moving the dialog forward . . .

[BrotherIvan]

15. What else can you say?

[Mnemosyne]

17. There really has been no dialog in decades, has there? I agree with Burf on this. nt

[dembotoz]

49. yep fuck em

[Skittles]

51. Burf speaks for a lot of us

[Paper Roses]

8. I can't believe this baloney. Be seem to be going backward.

Women have fought for generations for rights over their bodies. Now these idiots are up to it again.

Wait a minute, speaking of 'up to it', how about a ban on men having relations with any woman who believes in abortion rights. That would never pass, would it.

Where the heck do they 'get' off' proposing this?

My thoughts on this are not fit to print. Am I angry? Yes, no doubt.

[handmade34]

22. "Am I angry?"

you're f*@king right I'm angry... time to get rid of old white fundamentalist men

[nomorenomore08]

42. I agree completely. Time to shuttle these assholes off to the old folks' home.

[smirkymonkey]

63. +1000

I'll second that. F***ing bastards.

[misterhighwasted]

9. Rep Adrian Smith, R Nebraska, has also introduced legislation to REPEAL Dodd-Frank

Saying Dodd-Frank hurts businesses & consumers.
Via CSPAN tweet from Rep Smith.
Each Repub congressperson must have been handed a piece of paper yesterday, stating a mission for each one to fulfill.

Here we go.

[KansDem]

23. Rep Kevin Yoder, R Kansas, has started the process

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) has finally chosen to defend his role in passing a bill to subsidize Wall Street derivatives trades after going politically MIA when the issue exploded in mid-December.

The controversial measure eliminated a key rule from the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that prohibited banks from trading risky derivatives through subsidiaries insured by taxpayers. It was Yoder who first slipped this Wall Street perk into a $1.1 trillion must-pass spending bill, which indeed passed last month.

Big banks aggressively supported the measure because such taxpayer-backed trades are more profitable for them. Its language was drafted by Citigroup lobbyists, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon personally lobbied members of Congress to approve it. Ultimately, the congressional leadership of both parties signed off on its inclusion in the spending legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/06/kevin-yoder-dodd-frank_n_6425688.html

Yeah, my representative in Congress!

[misterhighwasted]

24. Is this the same Wall St./Dodd-Frank Bill that also FAILED today? Hope so.

Apparently they couldn't get enough votes.
Think this is the same one

[Journeyman]

10. In a Republican Congress, "science" is what they agree upon (facts and research be damned). . .

Like the Bandar-log, the monkeys in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book, they all beat their chests and loudly proclaim, "We all say so, so it must be true!"

[easychoice]

53. I wanna see JEEZUS!!! riding a dinosaur...

I demand it!
lmao

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. They sure are having fun on their checklist....

See, they hope to put all their extremist crap out right away in the hopes that voters will forget about it in two years.

[BrotherIvan]

16. Now that Democrats are in their comfort zone of the minority

Will they open their mouths and speak out against it? FIGHT for fuck's sake!

[gerogie2]

19. The only way they can ban abortion....

is by a constitutional amendment. Of course if they do that then Congress can decide who can obtain heart surgery. Republicans are for limited government except when it comes to women.

[riversedge]

21. Agree but this constant nicking at

it by states--now the Fed gov is doing great harm.

[jeff47]

54. There's plenty of ways to ban abortion without literally banning abortion.

Keep adding requirements to abortion clinics until you drive them out of business, like TX. Heck, make the abortion clinic requirements against the building code.

Or you could do the old "Must have admitting privileges" and then conspire with the hospitals to block that. Catholic hospitals are doing a great job at that. As an added bonus, they're buying up a lot more hospitals.

All you have to do is make it extremely difficult to impossible to actually get an abortion. It'll still be legal, but no one will be able to actually do it.

[Neon Gods]

27. Fetal pain. Unborn child. Ban abortion.

No chance of passing but great for raising funds from the rabble.

[Turbineguy]

28. Maybe they are pacing themselves.

[davidpdx]

29. It may pass the House, but the whole thing is a fucking show

The Republicans don't have enough votes for cloture in the Senate, so that is where it will die (pun intended).

[freshwest]

32. Or if, heaven forbid, it makes it through the Senate, this will happen anyway:

It's said the staffers had a hard time getting that pen on the plane from Hawaii...

I'd expect no less from the man named the First Feminist President:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801

[NewDeal_Dem]

35. I thought clinton was the first feminist president, also the first black president, if i recall

correctly.

so much nonsense in politics, isn't there?

[freshwest]

36. Not to women.

[NewDeal_Dem]

38. well now, that depends, apparently.

Feminists have, all along, muffled, disguised, excused and denied the worst aspects of the President's behaviour with women - especially in their reactions to Paula Jones, whose sexual-harassment suit they have greeted with attitudes ranging from tepid boilerplate support to outright hostility. The chief reason for feminists' continued support of Clinton is clear: Clinton is their guy... the most reliably supportive President they have ever had.

But if political opportunism is the main cause of their current blindness, it's not the only one. You can find in their reasoning a road map to everything that ails liberal feminism today: political self-dealing, class bias, and dedication to a bleak vision of sexual "liberation" that has deprived them of what was once the moral force of their beliefs. So, it seems appropriate to say here that I am a feminist and a registered Democrat. Many of the feminist activists in Washington are women I've known for years as sources; I feel an open sympathy for much of the work they do. Yet, I also feel something close to fury over their failure to call Clinton to account for his actions. My anger may be bred, in part, by my own past willingness to "put in perspective" Clinton's questionable behaviour with women - enough, at least, to vote for him twice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/how-bill-clinton-neutered-the-feminist-movement-1154350.html

[freshwest]

39. I wasn't talking about Clinton. Perhaps you didn't read my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014982826#post32

I don't care about Bill Clinton. There are groups for you discuss him and his wife at DU. Bye.

[NewDeal_Dem]

40. well then there's only one other thing you can mean and i suggest you don't speak for

all women.

[ismnotwasm]

58. No

And where is your information that feminists weren't outraged? Or attempted to "call him in to account"

And what does any of that have to do with the topic at hand right in front of us?

[NewDeal_Dem]

59. you started out with "women," now you've changed it to "feminists"

[Cha]

43. Right! "not to women", fresh.. very important to them.

[Cha]

44. Mahalo for the link to "President Obama-the First Feminist President".. nice to go back and read

again! He's done so much for Civil Rights for ALL.

[davidpdx]

45. It won't make it through the Senate

There are not enough D's that would defect due to the bunch losing last year.

[SunSeeker]

47. Yes indeed, riversedge. This is one of the MANY differences. nt

[rstanleyj2918ca]

48. Wow, the GOP really have too much time on their hands, don't they.

You'd think that these RW morons would actually try to do something about the economy, jobs, etc. But no, they waste their time on stupid crap like this. But then again, this is the GOP we're talking about here. They'd gladly drive this country into the ground instead of letting the liberals work to improve this country.

[uppityperson]

50. +1, I agree, wish for retribution.