Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.
It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.
Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.
Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.
After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.
The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”
Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702
Lol at the GOP trying to make this about sex selection when they’re trying to make birth control illegal. And which Democrats are balking at any of that totally reasonable legislation? What bonehead would balk at any of that?
Reasonable? uh, no.
“They’re trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it's not. This is not the same. It expands abortion,” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.
The bill before the Senate, written by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), prohibits states from enacting restrictions on abortion, even ones that fall short of full bans, and protects the right to an abortion later in pregnancy. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) generally oppose abortion restrictions, but are voting against Democrats’ legislation today. They argue the Democratic bill is too expansive, and have introduced their own legislation that would more narrowly protect abortion rights.
The takeaway: With Manchin’s opposition, Senate Democrats will demonstrate there’s a bipartisan majority that opposes their proposal, though they seem unworried by that result. Regardless, they would need 60 votes under current Senate rules to actually pass protections, and they seem most interested in putting Republicans on record in voting against abortion protections.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}