House panel approves legislation that would ban later-term abortions
By The Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 6:12 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The House is girding for another wrenching debate on abortion.
A House panel on Wednesday approved legislation that would ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches the age of 20 weeks.
Several recent court decisions have struck down similar state laws, and the GOP-backed bill has little future in the Democratic-led Senate, but the measure will give House conservatives a rare chance to reaffirm their social issue credentials.
The bill, named the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line 20-12 vote and could get a vote in the full House as early as next week.
House Republican leaders, concentrating on budgetary and jobs bills and investigating administration scandals, have largely avoided contentious social issues such as abortion, but anti-abortion conservatives have been spurred by the recent conviction of a Philadelphia abortion provider, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, for killing three babies born alive at his clinic.
“The terrifying facts uncovered during the course of the trial ... and successive reports of similar atrocities committed across the country, remind us how an atmosphere of insensitivity can lead to horrific brutality,” said committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
Bill sponsor Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and others argued that there is evidence — a contention Democrats say is unproven — that fetuses can feel pain after five months, justifying a ban on later abortions.
A federal court in May overturned a 20-week abortion ban in Arizona, saying that the law violated a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is viable. Viability is generally considered to start at 24 weeks.
Some nine other states have enacted similar bans and have faced court challenges.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Scientists achieve cloning advance for use in treating diseases
- Court upholds EPA emissions restrictions
- Heroin-related deaths set record in Ohio
- Clinton donor pleads guilty in illegal campaign contributions
- Reid calls Nevada rancher’s supporters ‘terrorists’ over armed confrontation
- Husband accused in slaying ate pot candy, police say
- Obamacare estimates beaten by 1M
- Deal reached in Ukraine crisis talks, but U.S. remains wary of Russia’s end game
- Imam’s influence detailed as NYC terror trial begins
- Chelsea Clinton expecting first child
- Law firm that cleared Christie recently gave $10K to GOP governors group