Category Archives: Legislation inspirations

Wisconsin bill would allow fathers to sue late-term abortionists

postabortion menby Kelli

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 237 would ban abortions after 20 weeks “postfertilization,” which doctors would measure as 22 weeks of pregnancy since pregnancies are usually measured from the woman’s last menstrual period. If the bill becomes law, doctors who perform an abortion after this time could be charged with a felony and fined up to $10,000, or face up to three and a half years in prison.

In addition to those penalties, the bill would allow the father to sue the doctor for damages, “including damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress,” if the doctor performs or attempts to perform an abortion after the 20-week limit. The man does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest. The bill also says the woman can sue.

~ Laura Bassett, describing a proposed WI bill that would allow expectant fathers to sue an abortionist for the emotional distress of a partner’s late-term abortion, Huffington Post, June 3

[Photo via razorplanet.com]

Democrat Party’s new cause: adult consensual incest

screen-shot-2015-02-02-at-9-46-21-pmYou will note a missing word in the description of the rape/incest exceptions in the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, i.e., 20-week abortion ban, passed in the U.S. House May 13:

EXCEPTIONS….

the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult woman….

the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor or incest against a minor….

Do you see it? The missing word is “incest against an adult woman.”

This is because adult consensual incest is, well, consensual. If it is not consensual, then it is rape and covered in the bill. Under the rape exception it is irrelevant whether or not the assailant is related to the victim.

This same logic could have been used to exclude “incest” from the minor rape exception, but as was explained to me by a person close to the bill, “The word ‘incest’ is not ‘needed’ in the minor rape exception, but it does no harm – it does not increase the number of people in the class who qualify for abortions.  It is simpler to have it there than to have to explain why it is not there.  With respect to adults, the contrary is true.”

74162351Actually there was never any version of this bill under which a consenting adult would qualify for a post-20 week abortion on grounds that her chosen sex partner was related to her.

Nor was any such change ever contemplated during the review process. Granting special status to adults who choose to engage in sex with their relatives was never an option.

But at least one Democrat decided during debate on the 20-week ban Wednesday to champion the cause of adult consensual incest, Congressman Steve Cohen (pictured above left) from Tennessee.

Note in this comedic clip how Cohen steps into it, but then falters a bit…

Transcript:

If a person is pregnant – a woman is pregnant because of incest, under this law, if the lady is under 18 years of age, there’s one rule.

But if she’s 18 years of age or older, there’s another rule. And what it says is if you’re 18 or over and you’re pregnant as a result of incest, then you cannot get an abortion. You cannot! But if you’re under 18, you can if you report it to the law enforcement authorities.

In a discussion last night at Rules Committee, the Vice Chair of the Rules Committee errantly compared rape and incest.

Incest does not necessarily involve rape. It involves intercourse between parties that are not legally supposed to have intercourse, and issues which could result in problems for the child. Incest should always be an exception….

So here we had Cohen advocating for special abortion rights for adults he admitted were involved in consensual but illegal incest.

And “problems for the child“? Major terminology gaffe.

And placing this adult consensual sex on the same plane as rape?

Is this really the next sexual taboo Democrats want to champion?

New language in 20-week abortion ban virtually ensures an end to late-term abortions

admin-ajaxYesterday, the U.S. House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act by a vote of 242-184-1.

In the gallery for the debates and vote, I was as horrified by pro-abortion opposition as I was elated by pro-life support.

Most egregious was Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who evoked faith, God, and even the song “Glory” from the movie Selma to defend the right to dismember 5-mo-old children (beginning at 33:32).

Both Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards hid behind tweets to express support for stabbing and decapitating little babies. Richards went too far, however, even for her…

I can’t even begin to fathom such an openly depraved mind as that.

Now the bill moves to the Senate, where the lift will be heavier than it was (but should not have been) in the House. Required will be 60 votes to surmount a Democrat filibuster.

Then, of course, there is our pro-abortion/pro-infanticide president to contend with.

But do not forget how the arduous progression of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban only served to heighten awareness of both the savagery of abortion and the humanity of the preborn child and with it heighten support for the sanctity of life.

Good riddance to late-term abortions

The other day I directed you to new verbiage in the Pain-Capable Act, but I want to explain how the added language will virtually end late-term abortions in the U.S, exceptions notwithstanding.

Those exceptions are: 1) rape/incest, 2) life of the mother.

Backing up, the Pain-Capable Act protects children from the “post-fertilization age [of] 20 weeks.”

But, as Wikipedia explains, “In human obstetrics, gestational age refers to the embryonic or fetal age plus two weeks. This is approximately the duration since the woman’s last menstrual period began.”

So, the New York Times article two weeks ago, entitled, “Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated, Study Finds,” was speaking of gestational age, which is the same as 20 weeks post-fertilization.

hqdefaultIn other words, the Pain Capable Ban protects potentially viable babies.

The added bill language specifies that pregnancy terminations must be committed in a way that “provides the best opportunity” for the preborn baby to survive.

This means the abortionist cannot kill the baby ahead of time by injecting him or her with a medication to stop the heart.

It also requires that a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation be present to care for the baby, and that babies born alive be transported to a hospital.

Additionally, there is the “call the cops or wear the cuffs” provision, making it a federal offense if employees/doctors witnessing an abortionist’s failure to provide medical care do not report this to police.

There is also a required informed consent form that includes the age of the child, a description of the law an explanation that if the baby is born alive, s/he will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital, and information about the woman’s right to sue if these protections are not followed.

Finally, the aborting mother is empowered with the right to sue her abortionist if s/he fails to comply with the law. Parents of minors may also sue.

Given these confines, I cannot imagine any abortionist daring to commit late-term abortions. And what second physician would agree to help?

If a mother’s life is truly endangered, and her obviously wanted baby (otherwise she would have aborted much earlier) is potentially viable, it would be abnormal to say the least for her to want her baby killed rather than saved.

The end result, if and when this bill is enacted into law, will be an end to abortions past 20 weeks in the U.S.

 

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban TODAY – 2nd anniversary of Gosnell conviction

Baby Boy BThe photo, right, is a close-up of the nape of the neck of a 28-week old baby boy whose spinal cord was “snipped” to kill him by late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell after the baby survived his abortion.

Today marks the two-year anniversary Gosnell was convicted for first degree murder of three babies – of likely thousands killed at his Philadelphia clinic over the course of decades. Gosnell was also convicted for involuntary manslaughter in the agonized death of Karnamaya Mongar by anesthesia overdose during her 2nd-trimester abortion.

Today is also the day the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which will ban abortions of babies after 20 weeks because it is known they feel excruciating pain when dismembered to death.

I will be present in the House Gallery to view this vote.

It was over the 20-week abortion ban that I was arrested on March 25, following first the decision by Republican House leadership to renege on a promised vote on January 22, the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, and then to go silent for two months, after promising to quickly bring it back.

After all the angst, I will say this, however. The bill today is much stronger than it was on January 22, as I briefly explained last week.

There are several new born-alive protections, an issue near to my heart, as well as other important enhancements. Read bullet points on the revisions in this one-page document of bullet points.

I want to highlight a couple of the provisions.

barack_obamaOne, that a second physician be present in the event a live birth is anticipated, is exactly what then-state Senator Barack Obama opposed in 2002, expressing “confidence” (pages 28-35) in the abortionist to properly provide medical care to the baby who just survived his or her first assassination attempt.

Another, what one of my friends on the Hill calls the “call-the-cops-or-wear-the-cuffs” provision, makes it a federal crime if a hospital or clinic employee, or another doctor, doesn’t report an abortionist’s failure to provide medical care to abortion survivors.

Social Media Rally!

Floor action on the 20-week abortion ban is expected to begin between 4-7p EST, although watch tweets by Congressman Trent Franks (@RepTrentFranks) for fine-tuning on the time.

Meanwhile, a social media rally has been launched to set the narrative and counteract pro-abortion opposition. Hashtags are: 1) #theyfeelpain, 2) #HR36, and 3) #prolife.

  1. RT and share @RepTrentFranks’ tweets.
  2. Create your own tweets in defense and support of HR 36 (see www.paincapable.com or NRLC’s Facebook events page for tweet samples). The more tweets the merrier!
  3. RT and/or Favorite other tweets from supporters of #HR36/#theyfeelpain.
  4. Write your own social media post

Thanks in advance. This is an important bill. At least 18,000 babies a year will be saved when it is eventually signed into law, and Americans will be further educated in the meantime.

As SBA List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser writes at Red State, there is no difference between the murders that Gosnell committed and late-term abortions than a few inches.

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban ~May 13

Screenshot_2015-05-08-08-36-00On the heels of a second protest at Speaker Boehner’s office, the Weekly Standard announced this morning that the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act around the anniversary of the May 13, 2013, conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

A source told me midway through the 3-1/2 month process of arriving at language that satisfied all contingents, “This is the most complicated bill I’ve ever worked on.”

Farthest apart were pro-lifers who wanted the rape/incest exception removed from the bill entirely and those who wanted the reporting requirement removed from the rape/incest exception.

Ultimately the compromise reached semi-removes (for adults only) the reporting requirement, replacing it with a doctor/counseling requirement, and adds new language making the bill ultimately stronger than ever.

The new language will make committing late-term abortions with exceptions very unappealing for the slime who would commit them in the first place.

Final language isn’t available, but LifeNews.com has a decription:

According to pro-life sources who spoke with LifeNews, the rape exception language will be airtight by requiring some sort of documented medical treatment or counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion (so hopefully the mother has a further chance to weigh abortion alternatives). In addition, such treatment or counseling must be provided by physicians or counselors that are outside of the abortion industry. In cases of rape or incest of a minor, the abuse must first be reported to either social service or law enforcement.

As pro-life sources have informed LifeNews, other new provisions of the bill that strengthen in include a born-alive infant protection requirement that requires a second doctor be present and prepared to provide care to the child if he or she is born alive and that the child must receive the same level of care as would any other premature infant. The baby must then be transported and admitted to a hospital. The woman is also empowered with a right to sue if the law is not followed, and is provided with an informed consent form that notifies her of the age of her baby and the requirements under the law.

Abortionists are explicitly required to follow state mandatory reporting laws and state parental involvement laws. Finally, abortionists are required to report any late abortions done under the exceptions to the Center for Disease Control and such data will be compiled into an annual public report to ensure accountability.

What the heck just happened with the trafficking bill? We won, that’s what happened.

human+trafficking+1280On January 13, Republican Senator John Cornyn introduced the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, legislation that would “create a federal fund for victims’ services and law enforcement tools financed by fines levied on convicted traffickers,” as U.S. News & World Report succinctly described it.

While victims of sex trafficking have been widely promoted as benefactors of this bill, victims of labor trafficking are also protected, one of a couple of important points.

The bill was sailing toward smooth bipartisan passage until March 17, when Democrats suddenly claimed to have discovered hidden anti-abortion language in the same bill many of them (including top Dem dogs Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer) had already approved in committee.

Within a day that story fell apart.

So, what we really had here was either Minority Leader Harry Reid attempting to reassert his manhood into a process that was running way too efficiently under Republican tutelage, or pro-abortion groups laying down the law.

Screen-shot-2015-03-19-at-11.21.41-AMThe latter is more likely.

What might have stirred the wrath of pro-abortion groups?

The Trafficking Act uses the same anti-abortion language as the 39-yr-0ld Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funds from paying for abortions except in the cases of rape/incest. This verbiage was thought to be noncontroversial, since Hyde has been approved annually on a bipartisan basis for decades.

And therein lies the rub. The Hyde Amendment isn’t permanent law. Congress must sanction it each year.

But the Trafficking Act has a duration of five years, until 2019, which is why the Hyde language had to be added to it.

Pro-aborts saw this as an expansion of Hyde, a precedent.

Democrats additionally accused Republicans of expanding on Hyde by applying it in this bill to funds collected in part from private sources – convicted traffickers – when Hyde only applies to federal funds.

This is ludicrous, of course, because most federal funds are collected from private sources – taxes, user fees, premiums, etc. Once the government has our money it becomes part of the federal pool.

Which brings us to how a “compromise” was reached that allowed Democrats to save face. Read this quote from Politico carefully:

The strain of the episode took a toll on Democrats….

It took six weeks, but Democratic leaders ended up cutting a face-saving deal Tuesday….

The restitution fund now has two revenue streams, one from traffickers and another from the federal government’s general fund. The money from traffickers can’t be used for medical procedures, while the general fund money is subject to Hyde Amendment restrictions on abortion, like all other federal spending.

In other words, none of the Trafficking Act funds can be used for abortion. But don’t take my word for it. From Jezebel:

In other words, then, none of the money can legally be used for abortion care. That really doesn’t look like a compromise.

From Politico:

“I don’t know that there’s much difference from what was proposed earlier,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) said….

There’s not.

Even NARAL’s gobbledygook attempt to claim victory still admitted defeat:

A compromise was reportedly reached to deny expansion of the unjust Hyde amendment to a private fund for the first time….

While this is a stunning loss that should serve as a strong lesson to the anti-choice zealots who repeatedly attach unjust abortion regulations to any legislation concerning women’s health, today’s tragic loss is for human and sex trafficking victims – women and girls – who will regrettably be denied full reproductive health care access as a result of today’s compromise.

In other words, we won.

One final point. Had there been no Hyde Amendment in the Trafficking Act, abortion funding would have been available to labor trafficking victims as well as sex trafficking victims, and for all five years – the duration of the Act.

So, by no means would abortion funding have been limited to pregnant victims of sex trafficking. It would have been available to trafficked victims where there was no sex crime involved at all, or to women who were subsequently in consensual relationships, perhaps four years down the road but still part of the program, such as in job training.

That’s the real reason pro-aborts wanted this amendment gone. The Act would have otherwise expanded federal funding of abortion.

Kudos to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for standing firm, going so far as to hold up the nomination of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General. Kudos also to Senator Cornyn.

[HT: Chicken Man]

Guttmacher Institute official laments state abortion restrictions

Elizabeth Nash 2014 - 181pxby Kelli

The action surrounding abortion restrictions is much more intense than what we were seeing 10 years ago.

While the restrictions are somewhat concentrated in states like Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma, 30 states have adopted some sort of abortion restrictions since 2011. It’s not just the South. It’s not just Kansas….

One part of me wonders if the backlash against abortions is due, in part, to that we don’t often hear women’s stories about abortion. It is amazing to me that when women tell their abortion stories, we say ‘Oh my God, you’re so brave,’ instead of seeing it as part of the human condition.

We see a real change in how the LGBT community is viewed. We haven’t seen that change around abortion.

~ Elizabeth Nash of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, as quoted by The Daily Beast, April 14

[Photo via guttmacher.org]

BREAKING: Pro-lifers announce sit-in at Speaker Boehner’s office to #FreeTheBan

11041421_10206488315192393_1794201296_n

On March 25 it will have been just over TWO MONTHS since Republican House leaders reneged on their promise to vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on January 22, when hundreds of thousands were participating in the March for Life.

If GOP leaders thought we might forget, they were mistaken. More than enough time has passed for them to right their wrong.

Today, I joined pro-life activists Rev. Pat Mahoney and Troy Newman in announcing a peaceful protest and sit-in at Speaker John Boehner’s office on March 25 at 11 a.m.

11047060_10206487690176768_1543167714_n (1)On that day there will be a pro-life social media effort called #FreeTheBan to compel GOP House leaders to pass this measure, which has overwhelming support among the American people across all demographics, as shown in this HuffPo poll.

Republican House leaders were roundly criticized for ineptly pulling the ban, such as in the Washington Post. 

Politico predicted re-election troubles ahead for those who blocked the ban, including Reps. Renee Ellmers, Jackie Walorski, and Charlie Dent. Even bill co-sponsor Marsha Blackburn has been identified as a potential culprit.

All pro-life activists in the Washington, D.C., area are urged to attend this important event. Those who do not wish to risk arrest are encouraged to offer support by their presence and prayers.

Sign up to join the event and show your support at our Facebook event page, where you can also learn more and get questions answered.

Pro-lifers not in the D.C. area are asked to plan to set aside time that day to cause a stir on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more at this Christian Examiner piece.

Pro-lifers are saying ENOUGH ALREADY. Pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act!

Read my previous posts on the topic:

“GOP’s Abortion Barbie causes a meltdown – of more than just the GOP”

“It has been two weeks since GOP leaders torpedoed the 20-week abortion ban, and I’m madder than ever”