House Will Vote on Bill to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

[Suzanimal]

House Will Vote on Bill to Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks on Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Republicans in the House of Representatives will hold a vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade late this month on a marquee bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn children feel intense pain in abortions.

Top Republicans and leading pro-life groups have been promoting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.

Politico has more about the upcoming vote on the bill on January 22, the anniversary of the infamous abortion decision Roe v. Wade that ushered in an era of legalized abortions with little or no limits.

“This is something we can all get together on,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who’s sponsoring the bill in the House with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. “The truth is this bill is a deeply sincere effort to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies.”

Their first salvo will come from the House, where GOP leaders plan to vote on a federal 20-week abortion ban on Jan. 22. That’s the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and falls on the same day as the March for Life, an annual mass demonstration of anti-abortion activists on the streets of Washington.

Leaders won’t be able to move as quickly in the Senate, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is committed to eventually holding a vote on the proposal after Democratic leader Harry Reid ignored it last year, according to aides and GOP senators. The goal is to vote on the measure sometime in the spring.

...

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/12/...ons-after-20-weeks-on-roe-v-wade-anniversary/

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

I want to see this reasoning.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Funny how this stuff always pops up when it will go no further than a veto, at best.

Funny how it never pops up when the GOP has all three branches of government.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I've read the lifenews article and the political article, and neither of them seem to carry a bill number.

How am I supposed to examine their Constitutional reasoning without a bill number?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Funny how this stuff always pops up when it will go no further than a veto, at best.

Funny how it never pops up when the GOP has all three branches of government.

I'd love to see this move forward providing they have a legitimate Constitutional rationale. They apparently claim that they do, but then never bother to share that rationale.

Or the freaking bill number, for that matter.

Is it just me or is there an inordinate number of political reporters nowadays that report on bills and such, but never bother to name the bill or cite the bill number? What's up with that?

 

[Suzanimal]

...

The legislation is assured of passing the House in January, but in the Senate it’s likely to fall short of the necessary 60 votes, even if Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana join with Republicans. Graham said that when the Senate takes up his bill, “there will be some bipartisan support. I don’t know if we’ll get to 60, but we’ll get over 50.”

Manchin is likely to vote for the bill, one source said, though he won’t co-sponsor the bill or publicly urge a vote on it. Donnelly’s office declined to respond to questions about his position.

But Republican unity could be a tougher test. Four Republican senators didn’t sign onto Graham’s bill the first time around, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Dean Heller of Nevada. Heller now says he “may or may not support” a 20-week ban but sees no reason to make it a priority.

“I’m pro-life, but we have a libertarian streak back in Nevada,” Heller said. He added that abortion lawmaking is “important to some people, and I recognize that and respect that, but I’m here on economic issues.”

Kirk, up for reelection in a blue state in 2016, was more forceful and said he’s sure to vote against the bill. He’s one of seven GOP senators up for reelection in states Obama won, all of whom will face scrutiny on their positions on social issues as topics like abortion hit the Senate floor.

“I’ve been supporting a woman’s right to choose throughout my time in public life,” Kirk said. “[I want to] make sure that we don’t overturn Roe v. Wade and make sure that decision rests with each American woman.”

Even so, Dannenfelser says getting lawmakers on the record would be important progress after years of being stifled by Reid’s majority. And she’s not resigned to the legislation facing broad opposition from congressional Democrats forever.

“It’s going to start to cut in to just your regular old Democrat,” she said.

For now, though, Democrats still see an advantage portraying Republicans as extreme on women’s health issues — and believe that ultimately, Americans don’t want members of Congress deciding abortion policy.

“Whose decision is this to make?” asked Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, chairman of Senate Democrats’ campaign arm. “Is this my decision in Washington, D.C.? Or is this up to a woman, in concert with her family and her minister, to make the decision? Which is where it should be.”

So members of Congress shouldn’t be writing abortion law? Tester responded: “Amen.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/republicans-abortion-114169_Page2.html#ixzz3PSPyw0fX

 

[Ronin Truth]

CONgresscritter RACISTS!

 

[mosquitobite]

Funny how this stuff always pops up when it will go no further than a veto, at best.

Funny how it never pops up when the GOP has all three branches of government.

Even so, Dannenfelser says getting lawmakers on the record would be important progress after years of being stifled by Reid’s majority. And she’s not resigned to the legislation facing broad opposition from congressional Democrats forever.

“It’s going to start to cut in to just your regular old Democrat,” she said.

Silly AF. It's not actually about banning abortions. It's about the political football during campaign season!

 

[Suzanimal]

Republicans Abandon Abortion Vote as Women in Party Flex Muscle

(Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Republican leaders abruptly called off a vote on legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy following objections by rank-and-file lawmakers in the party, including women.

Instead, party leaders plan a House vote Thursday on a separate measure to ban federal funding for abortion.

Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders have been unable to unify a party that now has control of both the House and Senate. Republicans are split among those who want to take a hard line on social issues and those who want to appeal to centrist voters and women.

“We should not be looking back into history,” said Representative Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, one of the Republican women who objected to a ban after 20 weeks. “We should be looking forward.”

After Republicans described their plans on the abortion legislation during a Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday night, Democrat Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, a member of the panel, described a “meltdown” among Republicans.

“It could not get a simple majority,” McGovern said of the ban after 20 weeks. “Now, we have a completely different bill.”

Republicans said the ban, which passed the House in previous years, hasn’t been shelved permanently.

The measure “is only delayed -- it will be up on the floor soon,” said Representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, explaining the change during the rules panel meeting.

Funding Ban

Smith said the substitute measure, H.R. 7, would make permanent a prohibition on federal funding for abortion services first passed in 1976. The provision is not codified, and is passed each year as part of appropriations legislation.

Republicans are calling for a vote on the measure on Thursday, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The abortion legislation switch came after disputes among Republicans over the ban. One point of contention was over language in the measure allowing exemptions for rape only if an attack was reported to police.

The legislation would have allowed abortions after 20 weeks in cases of incest involving mothers under 18. Some Republicans objected, and said the exemption should apply to all ages.

Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of a House caucus of self-described centrists, said the age limit for the exemption was “unreasonable.”

Private Meeting

So intense were some of the discussions during a private meeting among House Republicans Wednesday that staff members were told to leave so lawmakers could talk privately, Dent said in an interview.

The ban after 20 weeks, H.R. 36, is sponsored by Representatives Trent Franks of Arizona and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Franks, in an interview, had predicted the measure would pass overwhelmingly, as it has in the past, even though there was disagreement among Republicans.

“There’s some that want the exemptions taken out entirely; there’s some that want some changes in the exemptions,” Franks said. “We’ve tried to reach the consensus the best we can here and I don’t know what more we can do.”

The ban after 20 weeks stood little chance of Senate passage. The Obama administration said Tuesday the president would veto the measure if it reached his desk.

“Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor,” according to the White House statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...eled-after-republicans-fight-over-20-week-ban