ShareThis Page

Bill restricting abortions resurfaces in Pennsylvania legislature

| Monday, Dec. 4, 2017, 10:00 p.m.
The United States flag waves in the wind at the Pennsylvania Capitol building, in Harrisburg.
The United States flag waves in the wind at the Pennsylvania Capitol building, in Harrisburg.

HARRISBURG — The Republican-controlled Legislature could soon send Gov. Wolf a much-debated bill to roll back abortion rights in Pennsylvania.

A key House committee on Monday passed the legislation, which calls for banning abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies. Under current law, a woman cannot have an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The proposed measure would also sharply curtail a surgical procedure used in second-trimester abortions, which the bill's supporters refer to as “dismemberment abortions,” a term not medically recognized.

A final floor vote in the House could occur as early as next week, and, if approved, would go to Wolf. The chamber passed a similar measure during its last two-year legislative session.

Wolf, a Democrat, has vowed to veto the proposed bill, calling it “the most extreme anti-choice legislation in the country” and “an attack on women.”

“I have met with women and medical professionals, and understand how devastating and dangerous this bill would be for patients,” Wolf said in a statement Monday. He added: “Put simply, women's health care decisions should be left up to women and their doctors, not politicians in Harrisburg.”

Abortion-rights advocates and others, including many Democratic and some moderate Republican legislators, have decried the bill, which has not received a single public hearing featuring testimony from the state's medical community.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society has written several legislators stating its opposition to the bill, and an association representing gynecologists and obstetricians has expressed misgivings.

Among their concerns is that women often receive a critical ultrasound around the 20th week of pregnancy that can detect abnormalities that, in many cases, can be life-threatening to the fetus.

“We should be giving doctors the latitude to be able to have a conversation with a woman and her family about what's in the best interest,” said State Rep. Ed Gainey, D-Allegheny, who voted against the measure. “That should not be legislated by any government.”

Added State Rep. Pamela DeLissio, D.-Montgomery,: “When we pass this type of blanket legislation, we are in fact tying the hands of the licensed health care practitioner.”

Anti-abortion groups and Republican proponents of the 20-week ban say there have been enough advances in medical science for a fetus to be viable earlier than 24 weeks measured from a woman's last menstrual period — the commonly accepted marker in the medical community.

Rep. Matt Baker, R.-Bradford, chairman of the House Health Committee that passed the bill Monday along partisan lines, said he believes the issue had been “properly vetted,” warranting a vote in his committee without a public hearing.

Baker said there are a number of medical practitioners who support the bill, including the Christian Medical Doctors and Dentists.

“It's an issue that you are either going to be voting for or against, whether you are going to be pro-life or pro-abortion,” Baker said.

In his mind, Baker added, the matter “is a sanctity of life issue.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me