House passes late term abortion ban
June 18th, 2013
07:02 PM ET
2 years ago

House passes late term abortion ban

Washington (CNN) - The House of Representatives Tuesday passed a GOP-sponsored bill banning so- called "late term abortions" - procedures for women who are beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy. The vote was 228-196, mostly along party lines.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, stirred up controversy last week when he opposed an effort by House Democrats to add an exception for women who are raped, arguing that "the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low."

House Democrats seized on the comment, and because of the backlash GOP leaders later decided to add new language to the bill allowing women who get pregnant as a result of rape or incest to obtain an abortion if they report the crime to authorities.

The White House has threatened a veto on the legislation, but the Democratic-led Senate is not expected to take up the measure.


Filed under: Abortion • House of Representatives
soundoff (276 Responses)
  1. diane

    Will mem have zero restrictions on viagra and can get as many penile enlargements they want!!!
    Most americans 70%, want pro-choice men should not even be in this conversation.

    June 19, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  2. MLR

    The GOP will reap what they sow. They say they support life at all cost. Then they send young troops into harm's way on a lie and they don't even bat an eye. And even worse, they suspend any program that benefits women and children. It's irresponsible to play political games with women and children's lives. I wonder what they would vote if all the aborted children were carried full term and left on thier doorsteps.

    June 19, 2013 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  3. Dave

    Although I feel this vote is a complete waist of time and energy, it is NOT an abortion ban. It is a change that says a woman needs to make a decision in a timely manor, so as to be before any survivability of a fetus. There are been a number of babies born at 24/25 weeks that are healthy, and others have survived into the lower 20 weeks time-frame. There have been no (that I can find) instances of survival at under 21 weeks. I personally think that a woman should be able to make a decision within 20 weeks (roughly 5 months); don't you? (of course there are always exceptions, and many of these are included in this bill, so don't talk about exceptions that are already included. It make one argument afterwards very weak.)

    June 19, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  4. susan

    Why are they not working on real world bills like jobs,helping the small farmer the way they helped the big factory farmers,why are they not introducing stricter laws governing rest homes,foster care,child,elder,and animal abuse laws,cleaning up the factory chicken farms and all the others.providing monies to fix roads and bridges for all states,etc

    .Instead,they are sitting around making up bills about women reproductive rights,instead of beefing up security and providing information for battered women.I Here's an idea have each member that introduced this latest bill adopt 2 or 3 kids.Who do they think takes care of these children?If a woman doesn't want a child in the first place,if she is on drugs,mentally ill, etc.She is not going to suddenly become a good mother.There are way too many babies and children being beaten,killed,thrown out in the garbage. Help the ones that are here.Pass bills for better education stop making useless bills they should not be getting paid for this!

    June 19, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  5. Paul

    Nothing has changed. The term "liberal" is a sham. The war against babies continues.

    (free thinking, as long as you think like me, which means there's no room for a belief that a fetus is life)

    June 19, 2013 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  6. rs

    The GOP still promotes itself to its rabid base as being "pro-life" because they continue to assail judicially settled law, which simply doesn't jive with reality.
    The GOP stands against virtually all social programs including the VA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
    They have de-funded Education (the means to get ahead) at all levels.
    They have no health care plan, and keep voting down the ACA.
    They are anti-labor, anti-minimum wage, anti-worker benefits or protections.
    They certainly stand against any program that would support the women they would use the federal government to force women to bear their rapists' child.
    Look at the country they would create! A virtual playground for the rich, and the biggest number of Americans ever living poverty, with no workers' rights, restricted voting rights, no civil rights and more. Money only would rule.
    Certainly no a Christian vision, and certainly not good for anyone but the rich- very sick!

    June 19, 2013 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  7. pjoe

    The Democrat's war on babies must be stopped.

    June 19, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  8. John

    @ Paul

    "Nothing has changed. The term "liberal" is a sham. The war against babies continues.

    (free thinking, as long as you think like me, which means there's no room for a belief that a fetus is life)"

    Paul is a perfect example of the problem with this issue. There is no "liberal" plan or assertion that everyone should be forced to have abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. Most individuals, myself included, might choose to have a baby if they got pregnant or got someone pregnant. However, that is and should be a personal choice. No one is saying you must have the same beliefs, values or standards as anyone, it is a choice that is to be made on an individual basis based on their individual needs and abilities. It is conservatives that insist on trying to make national laws that tell everyone what they can and cannot do when it comes to their lives. I bet you went nuts about Mayor Bloomberg's soda limitations in N.Y. or the healthcare law forcing everyone to buy health insurance but you have no problem with the government passing a law telling an individual they must give up their life (literally or figuratively) to support by all biologic definitions a parasite. If YOU want baby, then it is a miracle, if YOU do not want one it is a burden physically, emotionally and financially.

    June 19, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  9. Genocide Anyone

    It's ok to kill a child when........................
    (There is no acceptable answer to this..get out of the dark ages and open your eyes people)

    June 19, 2013 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  10. heather b

    Abortion has been on the forefront for quite some time. Women who are Pro-Choice helped to bring this bill into action. Key word helped. Also, to compare a penis enlargement to an abortion is absurd. The intelligence or lack there of of that statement is very adolescent. Wow!

    June 19, 2013 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  11. John

    @ Genocide Anyone

    It's ok to kill a child when........................
    (There is no acceptable answer to this..get out of the dark ages and open your eyes people)

    Look up the definition of a child and you'll see how ignorant you sound. A "child" is a human being between BIRTH and puberty. No one is suggesting it is ok to kill children. A fetus with little if any cognitive or emotional abilities is a different story.

    June 19, 2013 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  12. John

    Conservatives are all for saving every single POTENTIAL person that is ever conceived until they realize they would have to raise taxes in order to pay for the care of all of the ones that aren't adopted. Of course knowing conservative, they would probably create a law that criminalizes sex without the intention of procreating or some kind of penalty for anyone who gets pregnant and can't or doesn't want it.

    June 19, 2013 01:05 pm at 1:05 pm |
  13. rs

    Genocide Anyone

    It's ok to kill a child when........................
    (There is no acceptable answer to this..get out of the dark ages and open your eyes people)
    ___________________________________
    Duh. We're not talking "children" here. We're talking about making women bear to term as the results of rape. Something that happens at least 25,000 times a year in the U.S. We are talking about keeping that decision the choice of the woman and her doctor, not old, white Republican males.

    June 19, 2013 01:07 pm at 1:07 pm |
  14. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    Dems just love to kill babies too much.

    June 19, 2013 01:14 pm at 1:14 pm |
  15. fayray11x

    the ONLY thing that the GOP does is pass lame abortion crap month after month to keep base of mental cases happy

    June 19, 2013 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  16. JustAO

    Sadly, there are those of us who care more about unborn people than actual walking/talking people's concerns (ie poor, disabled, veterans, elderly, college kids, uneducated, mentally handicapped, gay, immigrants, etc.) because why care about people who actually exist in our society when it requires so much work to do so by our citizens?

    Decisions are much easier to make when they are not yours according to the anti-abortion folks out there...

    June 19, 2013 01:19 pm at 1:19 pm |
  17. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    Democrats = Baby murderers = Kermit Gosnell.

    June 19, 2013 01:20 pm at 1:20 pm |
  18. Matt

    What is truly disheartening is that every time this issue comes up, some leftist compares a fetus to a parasite. You can't reason with that kind of ignorance.

    June 19, 2013 01:32 pm at 1:32 pm |
  19. rs

    Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    Democrats = Baby murderers = Kermit Gosnell.
    ___________________________
    Your fantasy just called. No one is talking about killing anyone post-birth- unless of course you're talking about the GOP's war mongering.

    June 19, 2013 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  20. Matt

    @rs – Post birth what? Abortion? Which is just killing, right? So in your mind, once the baby is born, you can't morally kill it for any reason, but before it is born you can kill it if you don't like the color of the walls in your bedroom?

    At least that's not insane...

    June 19, 2013 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  21. Jeff from Columbus

    @John. I looked up the definition of child. Here's the first definition:

    1. a person between birth and full growth;

    Ahh...so you're right. But, wait, as with most words, there is more than one definition. Lets continue...

    2. a son or daughter:

    Ok.. What's behind door #3?

    3. a baby or infant.

    Ok...still after birth. But, here's where it gets interesting...

    4. a human fetus.

    Ohh, SNAP! That's a bummer...ain't it?

    June 19, 2013 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  22. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    rs – Obviously by your post you support killing babies.

    I'm sure you're so very proud of yourself.

    June 19, 2013 01:42 pm at 1:42 pm |
  23. John

    According to conservatives, no one has a right to another individuals resources (labor, money, time, ability, food, etc.) regardless of their need. That's what is argued when they fight against providing healthcare for those that cannot afford it, any type of welfare and many other issues. Yet they have no problem at all saying that an unwanted (may sound mean but its the truth in many cases of abortion) fetus has these rights. The right to stay housed inside of a woman's womb and a right to be nourished by using the resources of the woman's body. That doesn't even begin to address the mental and emotional impacts on the woman involved in carrying a child and their favorite answer to abortion; adoption. I don't see how anyone can rationally or intelligently argue why one being should have the right to be a burden on another in that case but not in any other case. Of course that doesn't apply those who willfully had a child and chose to take on the responsibility. In that case, they have a right to be a complete drain on their parents.

    June 19, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  24. Matt

    @John – Amazing someone getting their definitions from Wiki is calling another person ignorant...

    Child:

    a : an unborn or recently born person

    a : a young person especially between infancy and youth

    Per Merriam-Webster

    June 19, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  25. rs

    Matt

    @rs – Post birth what? Abortion? Which is just killing, right? So in your mind, once the baby is born, you can't morally kill it for any reason, but before it is born you can kill it if you don't like the color of the walls in your bedroom?

    At least that's not insane...
    ___________________
    The study of biology and embriology has pretty well established the point at which a zygote can survive outside the womb, and more importantly when it cannot. It is the Right pushing the baby (i.e. post-birth) killing nonsense.

    Meanwhile you fail to address why any woman who is raped should be forced to bear her rapist's child or why suddenly a fully grown woman ceases to have her own rights- just like the Taliban believes. That sort of incredible inhumanity is why the GOP is losing women's votes.

    June 19, 2013 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12