The Senate is likely to vote this month on a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, sources familiar with the matter told the Washington Examiner.

Anti-abortion groups are pressing for the vote to happen the same day as the March for Life rally on Jan. 19, which happens every year close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade,the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

The House passed the 20-week abortion ban in October. The bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would penalize medical providers who perform abortions after 20 weeks of gestation with fines or with up to five years in prison, or both. The bill contains limited exceptions, including when a woman’s pregnancy puts her life at risk and in cases of rape or incest.

President Trump said in a statement of administration policy ahead of the House vote that if the bill were to reach his desk his team would recommend he sign it into law.

But the legislation will need at least 60 votes in the Senate and is not expected to pass. Still, anti-abortion groups hope that a vote will force the conversation during an election year to clarify candidates’ stances on abortion later in a pregnancy.

A similar bill banning abortion after 20 weeks met the same fate in 2015.

States have different restrictions on abortions, with 17 of them banning abortion at about 20 weeks post-fertilization, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks and studies reproductive laws.

Advocates of 20-week bans say a fetus can feel pain at this stage, while abortion rights groups have countered that women who have an abortion late in a pregnancy are often faced with genetic results that indicate if a child is born he or she will be disabled or will not survive.


6 Responses to “Senate vote on 20-week abortion ban coming this month”

  1. Loved until it’s born, then abandoned by the so-called “pro-lifers.”


    1. John Dunkle Says:

      Here’s what the pro-deathers say, “Don’t what her around? Want to have her tortured to death? Go right ahead.”


    2. It’s necessary to think of oneself as being a “rescuer” if one is trying to come to terms with the fact that one’s own death means permanent oblivion.

      Most of us find other ways to deal with the all-too-real fact that, as we can see in this life, there is NOTHING ELSE after we die. We adopt a religious or philosophical stance which helps us believe there is something else (but we never really know for sure either way).

      Some of us simply cannot hold fast to such beliefs, and we seek confirmation in the world we know. We do know that heroes survive their death– Lincoln, Mother Teresa, Caesar, Marx…. And some of us who need physical proof strive to become heroes.

      For so-called “pro-lifers,” though, true heroism is impossible. They simply lack the energy, talents, money and/or time to actually care for human life.

      They make up for this by invention. They invent a “victim” who cannot possibly receive from them the energy, talent, money and time needed to nurture them. They invent a “victim” who cannot let them know if they are providing the proper care (e.g., a baby will cry if it is not being fed the right food, but somebody else’s fetus will never tell them boo). And to further their “heroic” image with the public, they invent traits for their supposed “victim,” such as feeling pain, so that they can claim to be saving them from torture.

      But they will not care for real humans because they cannot. Why do they lack the energy? A psychologist could find out by talking to them. It’s already known that as a class they are poorer than the average American– hence, it makes sense that they would seek an emotional power as a substitute for financial power. Lack of talent? It’s well known that high stress will limit a person’s ability to develop needed talents, and as they are poorer and not solidly grounded in their recognition of mortality, they are under more than average stress. And the only time they have is the time that’s convenient for them, not for a child in need of nurture.

      They want to be heroes, but they need to be heroes on the cheap. Thus, for them, abortion is the easy road to personal salvation.

      Dunkle’s response: “I lost you after the second sentence.” Truth hurts too much to be read by the guilty.


      1. John Dunkle Says:

        I perked up of course at the last paragraph. What does it mean?


        1. I think it means you should consider the capabilities of octogenarian mental processes.

          There comes a time when all a cowboy has left in him is to sit by the fire and keep the branding irons hot, which doesn’t take too much thinking.


          1. John Dunkle Says:

            Oh, another ad hom, perked up for nothing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s