Democratic Lawmakers Push ‘Pro-Abortion Agenda on Steroids’


WASHINGTON — A boom in state laws restricting and regulating abortion over the past three years has some abortion advocates quietly building support to overturn all of them, with federal legislation far more sweeping than the original *Roe v. Wade *decision.

Since its first introduction by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the abortion-deregulation bill called the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) has gained 34 co-sponsors in the Senate and 116 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives — all of them Democrats.

Read more:


When conservatives have done things recently that no chance of happening, it has been called political grandstanding. I’d say this qualifies.


Have you noticed these bills’ titles are invariably Orwellian? Up is down, good is bad…“Women’s Health Protection…” are they kidding? I thought this was particularly chilling:

**The bill’s summary makes clear that state and local governments would be forbidden by federal law from regulating the abortion industry with laws requiring that abortion facilities comply with codes for ambulatory surgical centers, that abortionists have hospital admitting privileges and that only licensed physicians perform abortions. It would also forbid abortion bans based on fetal pain, late term or the type of abortion procedure used, as well as overturn mandatory waiting periods, informed-consent laws and restrictions on telemedicine abortions. It also “requires courts to liberally construe the provisions of this act” to make its application as broad as possible, Harned said.
Read more:

So they are concerned about women’s health but don’t want abortuaries or abortionists to be held to any kind of standard, that fetal pain is not to be considered, no informed consent required and no waiting period…"

As noted it’s the Kermit Gosnell Appreciation bill.

What is going on in the minds of those who support this kind of legislation? It makes no sense from a medical point of view, much demonstrating actual concern with women who have been maimed and killed in substandard abortuaries.

I do not understand why this is for some such a cause celebre



If this were to ever become law, it would be a very serious setback for the pro-life movement.


This law is scary because if Democrats ever in the future get a Democrat majority House, Senate and a Democrat president, or more unlikely, convince enough Republicans to support the bill, this could pass.

On the NCregister website, Becca brings up the 10th amendment and how this bill would not stand up in court. I do not get how this would stand up under Planned Parenthood v Casey? What do you think about the bill standing up in court? As the following article from a left-leaning website says:

many of the proposed and enacted state regulations on abortion are all too consistent with the new framework established by the Court in 1992

The NcRegister article allows points out from a pro-life Democrats:

The pro-life Democrat pointed out that “power goes back and forth in this country,” and the gains pro-life advocates have made so far are threatened by the pro-life movement’s dependence on the Republican Party’s ability to remain in power.

To convert the Democrat party to becoming pro-life when that party is entrenched in funding from the abortion industry is a major task, and it could take a long time, and Democrats could get what is said in the first paragraph of this post before that could happen, at least large scale.


If the bill was passed, signed in law and then challenged in the courts and overturned, would the state laws that the bill invalidated be reinstated or would the laws need to be processed and pass again and be signed into law?


“Women’s health” is largely a false front to help the Democratic Party get votes.


The courts have been ignoring the 10th Amendment since forever it seems.

Thomas Jefferson was railing against activists courts as early as 1803.


Well, when one party has votes locked up because of mass paranoia based on race, gender, sexual preference and those good ol’ farm subsidies, it’s safe to assume some political calculating is going on.


That the reality of fetal pain would be ignored brings to mind Josef Mengele.


What will likely happen is that this will be folded into another law as an amendment and will sneak in. That happens more than you’d like to know.


“Women’s health” is the new “reproductive rights”.


Another view on the OP.,d.b2k


There’s not enough Democrats who would support such a thing. Democrats DID control the House, Senate, and Presidency from 2009-2010 and they didn’t even attempt to pass abortion legislation. In fact, Democrats are so dependent on Southern, conservative Democrats when in control of the House that they rarely can pass anything relating to social issues (abortion, gays, guns typically), although that is becoming less true with regards to same-sex marriage and issues of the sort. But I still doubt they could get any legislation through, with a majority in the House, related to abortions or guns. They’d have to have almost a supermajority to have the votes in my opinion.


But remember, there is no difference in the two parties on the pro-life issues, right? :rolleyes:


Why Democrats may not have attempted legislation such as this is because, while there were abortion laws passed at the state level prior to 2010, since Republicans gained so many seats in 2010 a lot more abortion legislation has been passed.

More than 200 abortion restriction laws were passed and signed into law from 2011 to 2013, according to Guttmacher’s data. That’s a very sharp uptick from the pace of the previous decade: From 2001 to 2010, 189 such laws were enacted , the data show.

What Democrats may have not done before when they had majorities in the House and Senate doesn’t mean they would not try to pass the bill in question or other bills like it if they gain control of the House, Senate and have a Democrat president, or have some Republicans also vote for the bill.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit