Anti-abortion bill clears House, likely to go no further
By The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, June 18, 2013, 8:12 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Republican-led House on Tuesday passed a far-reaching anti-abortion bill that conservatives viewed as a milestone in their 40-year campaign against legalized abortion and Democrats condemned as yet another example of the GOP war on women.
The legislation, sparked by the murder conviction of a Philadelphia late-term abortion provider, would restrict almost all abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception, defying laws in most states that allow abortions up to when the fetus becomes viable, usually considered to be around 24 weeks.
It mirrors 20-week abortion ban laws passed by some states and lays further groundwork for the ongoing legal battle that abortion foes hope will eventually result in forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal.
It passed 228-196, with 6 Democrats voting for it and 6 Republicans voting against it.
In the short term, the bill will go nowhere. The Democratic-controlled Senate will ignore it, and the White House says the president would veto it if it ever reached his desk. The White House said the measure was “an assault on a woman's right to choose” and “a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”
But it was a banner day for social conservatives who have generally had their priorities overshadowed by economic and budgetary issues since Republicans recaptured the House in 2010.
Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, called it “the most important pro-life bill to be considered by the U.S. Congress in the last 10 years.”
Democrats chided Republicans for taking up a dead-end abortion bill when Congress is doing little to promote jobs and economic growth.
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.
- Parents of ‘spoiled’ teen urge her to return home
- Wikileaks founder teases about more secrets to be released
- Oklahoma governor’s daughter regrets wearing Native American headdress
- Flubbed ‘stifling’ finally ends 29-round spelling bee
- El Nino could bring relief to U.S.
- Former National Security Agency contractor Snowden’s leaks to cost billions, take years to fix
- John Denver tune finally an ‘official’ W.Va. state song
- Sullivan case still relied on in libel claims
- World War II veteran receives once-declined Purple Heart
- Armed forces near Benghazi cited
- California man named as bitcoin creator denies involvement