Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dem Senators Aim to Block State Restrictions on Abortion

Would ban anything "more burdensome than those imposed on medically comparable procedures."

by
Bill Straub

Bio

July 22, 2014 - 1:40 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee returned to an age-old issue that shows no indication of going away last week, considering legislation prohibiting states from implementing laws intended to hinder a woman’s access to an abortion.

The Women’s Health Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), aims to prohibit restrictions on what supporters characterize as a constitutionally protected practice “that are more burdensome than those imposed on medically comparable procedures.”

The bill, which stands little chance of making it through the Republican-controlled House, seeks to overturn state-imposed mandatory waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds and mandatory counseling before a woman can obtain an abortion. It further prohibits states from establishing fetus viability measures used to stop a woman from undergoing the procedure after a certain number of weeks.

Baldwin told the committee Americans expect high-quality healthcare but women are seeing their access to abortion, guaranteed under a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, “come under attack.”

“Over the last 40 years, politicians across the country have been increasingly chipping away at the constitutional rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade, which affirmed that women have the right to make their own, personal healthcare decisions and to have access to safe and legal reproductive care,” Baldwin said.

Many states, Baldwin said, “have been trying to turn back the clock on women’s access to quality care.” Over the last three years, states have enacted 205 provisions that restrict women’s access to safe abortion services, she said, and this year 13 states have adopted 21 new limits to access.

Last year in her home state of Wisconsin, Baldwin said, the legislature passed and the governor signed a bill requiring a woman seeking an abortion, who already had to make two separate trips to a clinic, to undergo an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. The law also forced healthcare professionals to carry admitting privileges at a local hospital.

“If it was not for a federal judge temporarily blocking this provision, two of Wisconsin’s four abortion clinics would have been forced to shut their doors and others would have been forced to reduce services, leaving many Wisconsin women out in the cold,” Baldwin said.

Congress is compelled to act, Baldwin said, “to guarantee that American women will continue to have the freedom to make their own health care decisions and to have access to essential, quality women’s healthcare services.”

Abortion has remained one of the nation’s hot-button issues for more than 40 years, pre-dating Roe v. Wade. Despite occasional shifts in public opinion, popular opinion over the issue has actually changed very little. A CNN/ORC poll, conducted Jan. 31-Feb. 2, found that 27 percent of those responding said abortion should always be legal, 51 percent said it should be legal sometimes and 20 percent asserted it should never be legal. Only one percent had no opinion on the issue.

Baldwin’s proposal drew immediate objections from committee Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who called it “extreme legislation.”

“It is legislation designed to eliminate reasonable restrictions on abortion that states across this country have put in place,” Cruz said. “It is legislation designed to force a radical view from Democrats in the Senate, that abortion should be universally available, common, without limit and paid for by the taxpayer. That is an extreme and radical view.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Great news, well at least in one respect--

Since minors require parental consent for virtually all medical procedures, it follows that parental permission for an abortion is certainly not "more burdensome than those imposed on medically comparable procedures." I mean, my kids school can't even give them an aspirin without my permission.


Could we get the parental notification/consent requirements reinstated where they've been over-turned?
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Many states, Baldwin said, “have been trying to turn back the clock on women’s access to quality care.” Over the last three years, states have enacted 205 provisions that restrict women’s access to safe abortion services, she said, and this year 13 states have adopted 21 new limits to access."

This is baloney. The dirty little secret here is the fact that most (if not all) abortion mills are operated by bottom feeders who doubtless have a very hard time getting privileges in hospitals & surgery centers while some state gov'ts want to turn their heads the other way. This legislation is designed to bring the standards of care up to par with the hospitals & surgery centers. This idiotic woman has some nerve using the terms "safe" & "quality" in reference to care in this context.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Has anyone else noticed that our abortion restrictions are significantly less severe than most of Europe? They are supposed to be the model of licentiousness...
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
I suspect the only thing that would guarantee a procedure in a clean environment with a medically certified gynecologist would be to allow women to SUE the governor if the woman is harmed, i.e. damaged organs, contract venereal disease because of lack of sanitatized instruments, etc.

I mean lawsuit- the governor loses his personal property if a jury finds he did not enforce state laws in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, states ought to be made to maintain an online list of any and all complaints about particular abortion clinics (with anonymity to the complainer)

Pennsylvania had laws on the books requiring inspections but the governors ignored the laws and eventually the Kermit Gosnell "house of horrors" came about.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good luck with that. Surely it's not just the governor but a whole host of bureaucrats who ignore the conditions in these places. Remember, it's a pattern that they don't even get inspected like they are supposed to & often when they are, infractions are ignored & paperwork is fudged to make it look like they are compliant. AFA these women suing, that takes money. It's all they can do in most cases to scrape together enough money to have the procedure, as these are the types, generally speaking, who utilize these places. Those more affluent & with insurance get admitted to the hospital or surgery center with the diagnosis of "missed abortion" (incomplete miscarriage) for the procedure listed on the surgery schedule as a "D&E" (dilatation & evacuation).
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
When you flood your Country with uneducated Hispanic peasants the whole demographic changes and you become a Third Rate Hispanic Nation which is exactly where the USA is headed.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
A Country without borders is not a Country. A State which does not enforce its border controls is a FAILED State. A country where the 'Rule of Law' is routinely ignored by those in authority is a BANANA REPUBLIC.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
The house should shove a no selective sex abortion bill right down their murdering throats.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Abortion advocates who oppose sex-selective abortions puzzle me. If it's ok for Mom to abort for her convenience, what does the basis for her determining it's inconvenient matter? Whether she'd rather raise a girl than a boy, or a healthy kid vs a handicapped, or a brown-eyed vs a blue eyed kid. I mean, if its the fact that its 'her body' that gives her the right to decide how to use it- than why is one reason more or less moral than another? Say they determine there is in fact a genetic basis for homosexuality and the woman thinks she just can't deal with raising a gay kid-- ??? Again, if killing the kid-- sorry, removing the fetus is ok than it should be ok regardless of her rationale. It's just a fetus it isn't a girl, boy, handicapped, blue eyed, gay or straight kid. It's just a bunch of cells that are inconvenient for Mom to cart around in her body and commit the next 18 years of her life to raising.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
"aims to prohibit restrictions on what supporters characterize as a constitutionally protected practice “that are more burdensome than those imposed on medically comparable procedures.”"

File this one under, "Go ahead. Make my day."

When abortions in every state are required to meet exactly the same health requirements "imposed on medically comparable procedures", most abortion clinics will be shut down.

This just demonstrates how completely ignorant these people are.

They've been caught in believing their own lies.

21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great news, well at least in one respect--

Since minors require parental consent for virtually all medical procedures, it follows that parental permission for an abortion is certainly not "more burdensome than those imposed on medically comparable procedures." I mean, my kids school can't even give them an aspirin without my permission.


Could we get the parental notification/consent requirements reinstated where they've been over-turned?
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, because someone once told a feminist about a fundamentalist Christian father who beat his daughter because she wanted an abortion, so therefore Shut Up!
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All