House Judiciary Committee Passes D.C. Abortion Ban With No Exceptions for Fetal Anomalies or Health of the Mother


H.R. 3803, a bill to ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks gestation, is heading to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives after members of the GOP-dominated House Judiciary Committee yesterday voted in favor of it by 18 to 14. The bill would ban abortions in D.C. after 20 weeks, allowing an exception only to save a pregnant woman’s life.

The bill, sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), denies a woman access to a medically necessary abortion. It includes no exceptions for situations where continuing a pregnancy will place at risk a woman’s health or ability to have children in the future, for women who may have serious but non-life threatening medical conditions, are suffering from a severe mental illness, or who learn of a fatal or severe fetal anomaly. It would also subject a doctor to criminal penalties for performing a safe and legal medical procedure.

Congressman Franks has been dogged in his efforts to deny women of the District of Columbia the ability to safeguard their own health and rights.

The majority of committee members rejected all proposed amendments that would have added minimal exceptions to protect women’s health. The GOP majority, for example,  voted against an amendment by Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) to protect cancer patients in cases where chemotherapy or other treatments to save a woman’s life might interfere with her pregnancy.

This amendment would have ensured that “women have access to the care they need during what is often the most difficult decision and most challenging time of their lives,” said Quigley.

“The extreme agenda pushed by anti-choice advocates completely ignores the health interests of cancer patients, whose ability to undergo lifesaving treatments, including chemotherapy, can be hindered by pregnancy.”

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, even with a broad health exception, the bill is “blatantly unconstitutional, as it aims to ban abortions before viability—an issue that has been well-settled under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

Yet, this bill goes further to provide absolutely no health exception for women in any circumstance other than an immediate threat to a pregnant woman’s life.

In a statement, Nancy Northup, president and CEO for the Center for Reproductive Rights said “By rejecting even minimal health exceptions to this plainly unconstitutional abortion ban, anti-choice members of Congress have made it clear that their hostility toward women’s fundamental constitutional rights will not be mitigated by concerns for their health, lives, or futures.

“This proposed ban on constitutionally-protected abortion services for the women of D.C. would force doctors to refuse critical care to pregnant women, even if it would avert serious medical complications for their patients.”

“This bill is deeply troubling and dangerous. Women don’t turn to politicians for advice about mammograms, prenatal care, or cancer treatments. Politicians should not be involved in a woman’s personal medical decisions about her pregnancy,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  “Ultimately, decisions about whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or raise a child must be left to a woman, her family and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor and health care provider.”

The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future.

In keeping with what is becoming GOP tradition, the House subcommittee that held a hearing on H.R. 3803 in May refused to hear testimony from women who would be affected or their representatives. The committee, for example, denied the District’s sole congressional representative, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the right to speak, rejecting a longstanding House tradition to allow members of Congress to testify on bills affecting their constituents.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that states cannot ban abortion before viability. The Court has also found that any restrictions on abortion must include an exception for when an abortion is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health” of a woman. HR 3803 blatantly violates these critical and well-established requirements.

The bill is likely to go to the House floor for a vote in a few days.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter: @jljacobson

To schedule an interview with Jodi Jacobson please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • coralsea

    Well, not that anyone who has been paying attention during the last year could miss it, but Republicans really don’t have any real regard for women other than as “vessels” for life (though when the baby is born, it can starve to death for all they care) and as people who they can bully.  And the fact that they won’t even let women, you know, the ones most affected by this sort of thing, testify, is just the icing on the cake.

     

    Although I hope that this stupid bill fails to pass, if it does, and anyone is harmed by their inability to get the treatment they need, I hope they sue the pants off Trent Franks and the rest of the dimbots on the Judiciary Committee who voted in favor of this thing.

  • wildthing

    All women face some degree of risk in pregnancy and childbirth therefore they are the only ones that can make decisions on the medical risks they face as well as risks to their family if something should happen to them or any other factors. Absolutely no one has a right to interfere with someones medical rights becuase of their relgious dogma or agenda or legislative process or judicial process or medical profession other than for unbiased information or a father who does not risk his life either