House Republicans Passed A Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy

HEADLINE: “House Passed 20-Week Abortion Ban” [The Hill, 10/3/17]

The House Passed A Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy, Making It A Crime To Perform Or Attempt An Abortion Beyond That Point. According to The Hill, “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 Hill, 10/3/17]

The Trump Administration Declared Strong Support for The Legislation

The Administration Released A Statement Of Administration Policy Declaring It “Strongly Supports” The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. According to The White House, “The Administration strongly supports H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and applauds the House of Representatives for continuing its efforts to secure critical pro-life protections. H.R. 36 would generally make it unlawful for any person to perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion of an unborn child after 20 weeks post-fertilization, with limited exceptions. The bill, if enacted into law, would help to facilitate the culture of life to which our Nation aspires. Additionally, the bill would promote a science-based approach to unborn life, as recent advancements have revealed that the physical structures necessary to experience pain are developed within 20 weeks of fertilization. The United States is currently out of the mainstream in the family of nations, in which only 7 out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. America’s children deserve the stronger protections that H.R. 36 would advance.” [White House, 10/2/17]

Trump Made A Campaign Pledge To Support The Bill. According to a letter from Donald Trump on the Susan B. Anthony List website, “I am committed to: Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide. Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and reallocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women.” [Susan B. Anthony List, September 2016]

Republicans Claimed their Legislation Would “Protect Those Children Who Science Has Proven Can Feel Pain”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy: The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “Will Protect Those Children Who Science Has Proven Can Feel Pain.” According to The Hill, “‘The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will protect the voiceless, the vulnerable, and the marginalized,’ McCarthy said in a statement. ‘It will protect those children who science has proven can feel pain, and give them a chance to grow and live full and happy lives. We have an obligation to speak and defend for those who can’t speak for themselves.’” [The Hill, 9/26/17]

Rep. Bob Goodlatte Advocated For The Legislation On The Anti-Abortion Website Lifenews.Com: “All Of Us—Republicans, Democrats, And Independents—Can Agree That The Government Has A Vested Interest In Protecting The Rights Of Children.” According to The Huffington Post, “Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, authored an op-ed on the anti-abortion website LifeNews.com on Monday touting the legislation. ‘All of us—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—can agree that the government has a vested interest in protecting the rights of children,’ Goodlatte wrote, ‘and that should include unborn children after 20 weeks.’” [Huffington Post, 10/3/17]

Trump Claimed The Bill “Would End Painful Late-Term Abortions Nationwide.” According to The Hill, “President Trump said in a September 2016 letter that he was committed to signing the bill ‘which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide’ should it pass through both House and the Senate.” [The Hill, 9/26/17]

Republicans’ Claims Were Not Supported By Scientific Evidence

FactCheck.org: While House Republicans Claimed Scientific Research Proved A 20-Week-Old Fetus Could Feel Pain, “The Ability To Feel Pain At That Specific Point In Gestation Is Unproven.” According to FactCheck.org, “A number of Republican House members say scientific research proves a 20-week-old fetus can feel pain. This is a complicated and controversial topic in science, but the ability to feel pain at that specific point in gestation is unproven.” [FactCheck.org, 5/18/15]

FactCheck.org: “A Firm Starting Point For Pain In The Developing Fetus Is Essentially Impossible To Pin Down,” And “Definitive Claims Regarding Pain Perception At 20 Weeks Are Unfounded.” According to FactCheck.org, “We reviewed the literature and spoke with several experts, and we conclude that a firm starting point for pain in the developing fetus is essentially impossible to pin down, and that definitive claims regarding pain perception at 20 weeks are unfounded. We take no position on the bill itself.” [FactCheck.org, 5/18/15]

A Review Of More Than 150 Studies Found That Fetal Pain In The Third Trimester Was Possible, But Less Evidence To Support The Possibility Of Fetal Pain In The Second Trimester Because Of The Immaturity Of The Cortex, A Lack Of Awareness, And Fetuses’ Almost Continuous Sleeping. According to an article by Carlo Valerio Bellieni and Giuseppe Buonocore in the Journal Of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine via ResearchGate, “We retrieved 217 papers of which 157 were highly informative; some reported similar data or were only case-reports, and were not quoted. Most endocrinological, behavioral and electrophysiological studies of fetal pain are performed in the third trimester, and they seem to agree that the fetus in the 3rd trimester can experience pain. But the presence of fetal pain in the 2nd trimester is less evident. In favor of a 2nd trimester perception of pain is the early development of spino-thalamic pathways (approximately from the 20th week), and the connections of the thalamus with the subplate (approximately from the 23rd week). Against this possibility, some authors report the immaturity of the cortex with the consequent lack of awareness, and the almost continuous state of sleep of the fetus. Conclusions: Most studies disclose the possibility of fetal pain in the third trimester of gestation. This evidence becomes weaker before this date, though we cannot exclude its increasing presence since the beginning of the second half of the gestation.” [Carlo Valerio Bellieni, Giuseppe Buonocore – Journal Of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, October 2011]

• Early Pain Perception Was Unlikely Because Connections Between The Thalamus And The Cortex, Which Were Believed To Be A Precursor For Pain Perception, Did Not Form Until Between 23 And 30 Weeks. According to FactCheck.org, “One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns ‘probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.’” [FactCheck.org, 5/18/15]

American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists: “When Weighed Together With Other Available Information,” The Conclusion Of Fetal Pain Legislation Supporters “Does Not Stand.” According to FactCheck.org, “The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has agreed with RCOG’s and the JAMA study’s findings, writing in 2012 that ‘[s]upporters of fetal pain legislation only present studies which support the claim of fetal pain prior to the third trimester. When weighed together with other available information, including the JAMA and RCOG studies, supporters’ conclusion does not stand.’” [FactCheck.org, 5/18/15]

The Congressional Budget Office Estimated the Bill Could Impact Up To 10,000 Pregnancies Each Year

CBO: The Bill Could Impact Up To 10,000 Pregnancies Each Year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Based on data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CBO estimates that, each year, about 10,000 abortions take place 20 weeks or more after fertilization. The number of those abortions that would be averted and therefore result in additional births under H.R. 36 is highly uncertain. That number would depend on how the women who would otherwise have such abortions responded to the restriction. If almost all of those women responded by having abortions before 20 weeks, there would be few additional births relative to current law. On the other hand, if the majority of women who would have sought abortions after 20 weeks chose instead to carry their pregnancies to term, then the number of additional births would be greater.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/17]

20-Week Abortion Bans Are Likely Unconstitutional Given The Ruling In Roe V. Wade

 20-Week Abortion Bans Are Likely Unconstitutional Given The Ruling In Roe V. Wade. According to CNN, “The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest. […] Similar legislation is already enacted in several states. But opponents of the legislation argue 20-week abortion bans are unconstitutional. ‘This dangerous, out-of-touch legislation is nothing more than yet another attempt to restrict women’s access to safe, legal abortion,’ Planned Parenthood Action Fund said online. PPAF also writes, ‘20-week bans are unconstitutional. 20-week bans are a clear attempt to erode Roe v. Wade. In fact, 20-week ban proponents are outspoken about their goal to challenge the 1973 Supreme Court decision protecting a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion.’” [CNN, 10/3/17]

The 20-Week Abortion Ban Was Passed three Days After CHIP – Which Serves 9 Million Low- and Moderate-INcome Children – Was Allowed to Expire

Huffington Post: “The Move Comes Three Days After Congress Allowed A Federal Children’s Health Program To Expire, Potentially Leaving Millions Of Poor Children Without Insurance Coverage.” According to The Huffington Post, “House Republicans are expected to pass a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy ― a move the Trump administration said will ‘help to facilitate a culture of life.’ The move comes three days after Congress allowed a federal children’s health program to expire, potentially leaving millions of poor children without insurance coverage.” [Huffington Post, 10/3/17]

CHIP Covered Nearly 9 Million Children In Low- And Moderate-Income Families. According to Kaiser Health News, “One of the immediate casualties is the renewal of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP covers just under 9 million children in low- and moderate-income families, at a cost of about $15 billion a year.” [Kaiser Health News, 5/22/17]

Trump’s Budget Proposal Included Cuts To Medicaid And CHIP, Which Together Cover 4 In 10 American Children

Headline: “Trump Wants To Cut Medicaid, Children’s Health Care.” [McClatchy, 5/22/17]

Trump’s Budget Called For $800 Billion In Cuts To Medicaid. According to CNN, “Donald Trump’s budget that is expected to be unveiled on Tuesday will include $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid — a move that underscores the President’s resolve to significantly downsize the federal program even as Republican lawmakers are clashing over the issue in Congress.” [CNN, 5/22/17]

• About Four In Ten Children Had Health Insurance Coverage From CHIP And Medicaid. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are key sources of coverage for children, covering nearly four in ten children (39%) nationwide and 44% of children with special health care needs. In FY2016, it covered about 9 million children in families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but often lack access to affordable private coverage.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/23/17]
• Nearly Half Of Children With Special Health Care Needs Had Health Insurance Coverage Under CHIP And Medicaid. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are key sources of coverage for children, covering nearly four in ten children (39%) nationwide and 44% of children with special health care needs.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/23/17]

The CBO Predicted The Bill Would Actually Increase Medicaid Costs, As Nearly Half Of All Births Are Paid For Through Medicaid

Congressional Budget Office: The Bill Would Increase Medicaid Costs, As 45 Percent Of Births Are Paid For Through Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “H.R. 36 would ban abortions from being performed 20 weeks or more after fertilization, except when the pregnancy is a result of reported rape or reported incest against a minor, or is necessary to save the life of the mother. Violators of the act’s provisions would be subject to a criminal fine or imprisonment, or both. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 36 would increase direct spending, primarily for Medicaid in order to cover the costs of additional births under the act. […] Because the costs of about 45 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program, CBO estimates that federal spending for Medicaid will rise to the extent that enacting H.R. 36 results in additional births relative to current law.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/17]

• CBO: Additional Medicaid Costs Could Range From About $65 Million To About $335 Million Over The Next 10 Years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Because the number of abortions that would be averted due to the act is very uncertain, the extent of that additional Medicaid spending is also very uncertain. Depending on the number of additional births under H.R. 36, such Medicaid costs could range from about $65 million over the next 10 years to about $335 million over that period.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/17]

CBO: The Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficits By $175 Million Over The Next Decade. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 36 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 550 (health). CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 36 would generate changes in direct spending that would increase federal budget deficits by $55 million over the 2018-2022 period and $175 million over the 2018-2027 period.” [Congressional Budget Office, 10/2/17]

ThinkProgress: The Ban Is “Really About Finding An Initial Foothold To Chip Away At Roe V. Wade, And Then Continuing To Move The Goal Posts”

Planned Parenthood: “20-Week Bans Are Part Of An Agenda To Ban All Abortion.” According to Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “20-week bans are part of an agenda to ban all abortion. Anti-abortion politicians in congress and in state legislatures are pushing their agenda, bit by bit, to ultimately outlaw abortion completely.” [Planned Parenthood Action Fund, accessed 10/11/17]

ThinkProgress: A 20-Week Ban Is “The First Step In A Larger Strategy To Cut Off Legal Abortion Access Altogether, Cloaked Under The Guise Of A ‘Moderate’ Policy.” According to ThinkProgress, “But don’t be fooled. The political momentum for 20-week bans isn’t actually about compromising, or about adhering to a specific deadline that will prevent fetuses from feeling pain. It’s really about finding an initial foothold to chip away at Roe v. Wade, and then continuing to move the goal posts. It’s the first step in a larger strategy to cut off legal abortion access altogether, cloaked under the guise of a ‘moderate’ policy.” [ThinkProgress, 3/14/14]

20-Week Abortion Bans Are Spreading Through America Like An Epidemic

[Source: NARAL; Pink indicates “Anti-choice law that is enjoined, partially enjoined, or unconstitutional and unenforceable;:” Red indicates “Anti-choice law;” accessed 10/11/17]

Trump’s Florida Campaign Co-Chair Led An Effort to Institute A 20-Week Abortion Ban IN The State

Two Florida State Representatives, Including Trump’s Florida Campaign Co-Chair, Introduced The Florida Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act To Ban Abortion After 20 Weeks. According to the Miami New Times, “Yesterday first-term state Reps. Joe Gruters and Don Hahnfeldt, two (male) Republicans from Sarasota and Central Florida, filed HB 203, also called the ‘Florida Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,’ which would make performing an abortion after a fetus can ‘feel pain’ illegal. Gruters’ bill says, specifically, that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks. Florida law currently bans abortions after 24 weeks postconception. Gruters did not respond to a phone message yesterday from New Times. A companion bill has not yet been filed in the state Senate. On Facebook, Gruters said Wednesday he was ‘proud to stand up for life in the first bill that I file as a member of the state House.’ Gruters was the cochair of Donald Trump’s Florida campaign.” [Miami New Times, 1/11/17]

Miami New Times: “State Legislators Have Been Salivating At The Idea Of Restricting Abortion Access In Recent Years.” According to the Miami New Times, “State legislators have been salivating at the idea of restricting abortion access in recent years: They proposed a 20-week ban in 2014, which failed to pass. In 2015, state lawmakers passed a sweeping bill requiring women to endure 24 hours of counseling before undergoing an abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union then sued: Since then, the Florida Supreme Court suspended the waiting-period rules and has not yet ruled on whether to strike down the law. A year later, the state passed yet another bill legally shortening the dates of pregnancy trimesters, forcing abortion providers to have hospital-like facilities, and stopping state funding to Planned Parenthood, the women’s health-care provider which also administers abortions. A federal judge struck down portions of that law hours before it went into effect. Planned Parenthood has long fought 20-week bans, couching the measures as ‘part of an agenda to ban all abortion.’” [Miami New Times, 1/11/17]

The Bill Was Based On Model Legislation Drafted By The National Right To Life Committee. According to Rewire’s Legislative Tracker, “Based on model legislation drafted by the National Right to Life Committee[.]” [Legislative Tracker – Rewire, 7/5/17]

The Bill Died In The Health Policy Committee And Was Indefinitely Postponed And Withdrawn From Consideration. According to the Florida Senate, “1/11/2017[-] Senate • Filed[;] 1/25/2017[-] Senate • Referred to Health Policy; Judiciary; Rules -SJ 61[;] 3/7/2017[-] Senate • Introduced -SJ 61[;] 5/5/2017[-] Senate • Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration[;] • Died in Health Policy[.]” [Florida Senate, 7/1/17]

Illinois Legislators Pushed Model Legislation From A National Anti-Abortion Group To Institute A 20-Week Ban

Illinois’s HB3210 Aimed To Institute An Abortion Ban At 20 Weeks. According to the Illinois General Assembly, “Bill Status of HB3210 […] Description: ABORTION LAW-UNDER 20 WEEKS[.] House Sponsors[-] Rep. Jerry Costello, II – Terri Bryant[.] Last Action[-] 3/31/2017[,] House Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee[.]” [Illinois General Assembly, archived 10/4/17]

The Bill Was Based On Model Legislation Drafted By Americans United For Life, As Well As The National Right To Life Committee. According to Rewire’s Legislative Tracker, “Illinois 20-Week Abortion Ban (HB 3210) […] Based on model legislation drafted by Americans United for Life, as well as the National Right to Life Committee.” [Legislative Tracker – Rewire, 7/5/17]

• The “Women’s Health Defense Act” Was Model Legislation Written By Americans United For Life To Prohibit Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy. According to Americans United for Life, “Our goal of exposing and confronting the atrocities of Big Abortion is the top priority of the Women’s Protection Project. This is accomplished through our expertly crafted model legislation, specifically: The ‘Women’s Health Defense Act’ which prohibits abortions after five months of pregnancy. This legislation is predicated [sic] or the harms inherent in late-term abortions and attacks the U.S. Supreme Court’s main rationale for Roe – the ‘reliance interest’ which presumes that abortion is safer than childbirth and benefits women. The Women’s Protection Project also based on medical evidence of the pain endured by unborn children in later-term abortions.” [Americans United for Life, March 2014]

Virginia House Republicans Are Hoping To Elect A Republican Governor who Will Sign 20-Week Ban Legislation

2016: Virginia House Republicans Attempted To Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks Of Pregnancy. According to The Washington Post, “This session, Virginia House Republicans failed to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a top priority. But they are surprisingly upbeat, encouraged by signs in Virginia and across the country that their long-term strategy for restricting access to the procedure is picking up steam. […] That hasn’t stopped Del. David A. LaRock (R-Loudoun) from trying to persuade the General Assembly to ban certain late-term abortions for the second year in a row.” [Washington Post, 2/21/16] 

• The Bill Failed, With Republicans Hoping To Pass It In 2018 With A Republican Governor. According to The Washington Post, “This session, Virginia House Republicans failed to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a top priority […] And Republicans are looking at 2018, when they hope to trade Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) — a self-professed ‘brick wall’ against limits on abortion — for an antiabortion Republican. But they still have an uphill climb in Virginia, where Republicans running on social issues have consistently lost statewide races.” [Washington Post, 2/21/16]

2017: Virginia Lawmakers Were Considering House Bill 1473, Which Sought To Restrict Abortions Based On When Fetuses Could Feel Pain. According to The Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Virginia lawmakers are considering House Bill 1473, sponsored by Del. David A. LaRock, R-Loudoun, which seeks to restrict abortions based upon when fetuses can feel pain. In a post on his campaign website, Stewart recently said ‘Every life is precious and needs to be protected. It is our duty as elected officials to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The Pain-Cabable Unborn Child Protection Act is only a start.’” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1/25/17]

Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Ed Gillespie: “As Governor I Would Support And Sign Pain-Capable Legislation To Ban Late-Term Abortions After An Unborn Child Can Feel Pain.” According to The Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Gillespie said in a statement this week: ‘As governor I would support and sign pain-capable legislation to ban late-term abortions after an unborn child can feel pain, with exceptions for cases involving the life of the mother, rape or incest. Protecting innocent human life is a central function of our government.’” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1/25/17]