How the Democrats’ Abortion Bill Enshrines a Right to Abort Baby Girls Because They Are Girls
The legislation’s supporters don’t want to talk about that.
The legislation’s supporters don’t want to talk about that.
M aine GOP senator Susan Collins supports an expansive right to abortion, but she opposes the congressional Democrats’ abortion bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), because it goes beyond Roe v. Wade (which itself is a radical abortion policy imposed by the Supreme Court that places U.S. law far outside the norm worldwide).
The WHPA is a sweeping bill that effectively creates a federal right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy (through an expansive post-viability “health” exception that would include mental and emotional health). It would also strike down almost all state laws on abortion. One of Collins’s objections is that the WHPA would create a federal right to sex-selective abortions — that is, abortions that (typically) target unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. “WHPA’s overly broad language far exceeds Roe by striking down state laws such as those that require certain materials to be given to the patient, prohibit sex-based abortions, or require parental or guardian notification for minors seeking an abortion,” according to a press release sent out by Collins and Alaska GOP senator Lisa Murkowski.
The text of the WHPA invalidates any law that “singles out” and “impedes access” to abortion, and it specifically prohibits any “requirement that a patient seeking abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a health care provider’s degree of actual or constructive knowledge of such reason or reasons [emphasis added].”
On Tuesday, I asked several Senate Democrats if they disputed Collins’s position that the WHPA protects a right to sex-selective abortions; they all dodged the question or said they didn’t know.
The WHPA’s chief sponsor in the Senate, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told National Review: “I can’t comment on hypothetical state laws.” But these aren’t hypothetical laws. The Guttmacher Institute notes that “11 states ban abortions for reason of sex selection at some point in pregnancy.”
“I don’t know,” Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin said when asked if the bill protects sex-selective abortions. “I’ve got a summary here [of the bill] I’m going to read on those particulars.” Democratic senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin also indicated she didn’t know the answer to the question.
At his weekly press conference, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer dodged when asked if Collins is right that the WHPA prevents states from banning sex-selective abortions, saying that the bill merely “keeps Roe in place.”
Democratic senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, asked if the Women’s Health Protection Act prohibits sex-selective abortions that usually target unborn baby girls, would only say: “I look forward to voting for the Women’s Health Protection Act.”
As the text of the bill makes clear, this isn’t a hard question to answer. But the simple answer to a simple question draws attention to the humanity of the unborn child; makes plain that the Democrats’ abortion bill goes far beyond “women’s health”; and contradicts the purported feminism of WPHA’s champions. Is there any doubt that is the reason why Senate Democrats won’t acknowledge that their radical bill creates a nationwide right to sex-selective abortions?