New language in 20-week abortion ban virtually ensures an end to late-term abortions
Yesterday, 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…
Put simply: a 20-week abortion ban lacks compassion & it lacks respect. #StopTheBans #HR36
— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) May 13, 2015
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.
In 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.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I would really like to know why someone (a Republican, interestingly enough) voted present on this bill. Seems like a pretty cowardly thing to do.
This is a law that everyone should like and support. It protects fully developed and viable children from being torn apart, limb by limb.
I can’t imaging anyone opposing this, except for the abortion industry and the politicians they own.
The headline misleads from the fact that this is going to be vetoed and is entirely a symbolic gesture. Now we have a record that shows a split along party lines should surprise no one.
It’s all a bit of an anticlimax isn’t it. No surprise there.
JDC, I know the answer to that. The “present” vote was by GOP Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, apparently at the behest of GA Right to Life (a personhood group). GARTL’s president, Dan Becker, was sitting in the section next to me in the gallery and was thrilled with his vote.
Even if it did pass, it would only be an end to business as usual. Some abortionists would decide that it’s not worth the bother, but others would just do a Tiller/Neuhaus arrangement and be each other’s backup docs by taking a training course in neonatal resuscitation. Either that or they’ll find quacks among their associates to be a Neuhaus for them.
All this law would do would give those with the WILL to go after seedy abortionists an additional tool to do so. But every single case will have to be airtight. Look at how Waddill beat the rap when he strangled a 32-week newborn in front of several horrified NICU nurses and a stunned pediatrician. I predict that the only cases that would ever be prosecuted are those in which authorities who have not been corrupted by the abortion establishment stumble over the situations.
Every law, every regulation, everything that’s in place, will need local hometown prolifers monitoring their local abortionists like the US and USSR monitored each other during the Cold War.
There will never, ever be a point at which we can relax vigilance and go on with our lives confident that babies and their mothers are safe.
The devil is angry with the GOP and with the US.
That’s not what good GOP folk keep telling us truthseeker.
Quite the opposite.
Though pro-life leaders seem happy with the Act, I haven’t yet seen an explanation of how the “medical treatment or licensed counseling” requirement can prevent false rape claims. What prevents any pregnant woman who wasn’t raped from going to a counselor, saying she was raped, listening to some words of advice, and proceeding to get her abortion? I must have missed something.
“JDC, I know the answer to that. The “present” vote was by GOP Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, apparently at the behest of GA Right to Life (a personhood group).”
I see. So it’s less a matter of cowardice and more a matter of foolishness.
On Jody Hice’s (R-GA) vote of “present”: If there is a pro-life reason for this vote, then it needs to be promoted and publicized, at least on the pro-life blogs. At this point, the confusion plays into the hands of pro-bort apologists.
On those pro-lifers who are already finding faults with this law: It is a clear and strong pro-life bill. Yes, some abortionists and some confused late-term mothers will try to find ways around it. But even if the law is not airtight or perfect-in-every-way, we need to keep fighting for it.
The public debate is the pro-life effort. We change hearts and convert the country by making abortion stand in the light where everyone can see it.
[…] of Wisconsin made impassioned remarks on the floor of the U.S. House Wednesday in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (which […]
Del, you wrote: “It is a clear and strong pro-life bill.” Please help me regarding the the “medical treatment or licensed counseling” requirement. What prevents any pregnant woman who wasn’t raped from going to a counselor, saying she was raped, listening to some words of advice, and proceeding to get her abortion?
Acyutananda, did you read my post? The counseling requirement, which may or may not convince a mother to change her mind, is more than offset by other requirements in the bill that will make the abortionist change his or her mind.
[…] activists are more than happy to explain it to you themselves.In an article called, “New language in 20-week abortion ban virtually ensures an end to late-term abortions,” activist Jill Stanek makes it clear that the exceptions are written explicitly to frighten […]
Thanks, Jill Stanek. I do remember the exact phrase “more than offset” in a post or tweet from you, but it doesn’t appear to be in the above post, nor in “House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban TODAY – 2nd anniversary of Gosnell conviction” nor in “House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban ~May 13.” Where it did occur, as I remember, there was no elaboration as to how the weakness of the counseling requirement was offset.
I can understand the strength of “pregnancy terminations must be committed in a way that ‘provides the best opportunity’ for the preborn baby to survive” IF a lot of the babies will really be viable in the first place — otherwise there could be many women who lie about rape and whose babies die despite sincere attempts to deliver them alive, simply because they weren’t viable.
Anyway, I guess you’ve confirmed to me that the “medical treatment or licensed counseling” requirement itself is no substitute for the original “report to authorities” language. Thanks very much!
Is the full text of the bill not available online yet, do you know?
[…] You 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: […]
JDC, more on your question… http://www.redstate.com/diary/lifeofgrace/2015/05/19/georgia-right-to-life-bullies-congress/
“JDC, more on your question…”
Thanks!