New Hampshire's senior Senator Jeanne Shaheen and 2nd District Congresswoman Ann Kuster are co-sponsors of legislation introduced in Washington earlier this month that would wipe out all abortion regulations in every state, including those recommending parental involvement and restricting late-term abortions.
The deceptively-named "Women's Health Protection Act" was introduced in the Senate by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and in the House by Judy Chu (D-CA). The Senate bill, S.1696, currently has 32 co-sponsors. The House Bill, H.R. 3471, has 77. Details of this bill may be found at congress.gov.
A better name for the bill would be GTUN: Gosnell Taught Us Nothing.
Kelly Ayotte's name is not on the bill, which is no surprise. Neither is Carol Shea-Porter's, which frankly does surprise me.
"Findings" in the preface to the bill include the claim that abortion has been "hindered" by blockades (like people praying outside abortion facilities?), restrictions on insurance coverage (like the Hyde Amendment), restrictions on minors (like parental notification with judicial bypass), and restrictions on providers.
Think about that. The sponsors want no restrictions on providers. Sounds like back-alley days to me.
So what would the bill do?
This Act would make a number of recently-passed state-level abortion laws null and void, including bills passed in the nauseating wake of Kermit Gosnell's crimes in Philadelphia. Among laws that would be wiped out:
Limits on a provider's ability to delegate tasks. Recall that Gosnell delegated to his staff the task of administering and monitoring sedation for women undergoing abortions. Karnamaya Mongar is dead thanks to that.
Limits on ability to prescribe and dispense drugs. This would mean the end of any meaningful FDA protocols regarding the use of abortion-inducing drugs. PP affiliates already advertise such drugs for use up to 63 days into pregnancy, while the FDA draws the line at 49. This would also pose challenges to any state that tries to keep taxpayers from entering into public contracts with abortion providers. Remember how PPNNE claimed after losing its New Hampshire Title X contract in 2011 that it could no longer "dispense" birth control, which turned out to be nonsense? The very claim of inability-to-dispense would undermine taxpayer protection.
Limits on telemed abortions. This is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies that make & plan to make abortion-inducing drugs.
Requirements that abortion facilities have doorways and hallways that can accommodate gurneys, should a woman require emergency transport following an abortion.
Requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
Any law that requires more than one trip to a provider before abortion could be performed. Goodbye, 24-hour waiting periods, where they're required (NH has no such law yet). Hello, drive-through abortions. The thank-you notes to Shaheen and Kuster from abusive partners and other people who coerce women into abortions are probably already addressed and ready to go.
There's more, but you get the idea. I see a lot in there to warm the heart of an abortion provider or a pharmaceutical rep, but nothing that protects women's health.
Would statistical collection of abortion information be banned under this bill? I don't see how such requirements would survive under the bill. God forbid the stats might show that women are being harmed by abortion providers. Might have a chilling effect on the industry.
And the preborn child? A cipher. Post-viability abortion would be fine under this bill. It has no requirement that a child born alive following attempted abortion be cared for. Gosnell-like snipping of babies' necks would be protected under this bill, as long as the abortionist uses her or his "best" medical judgment.
Contact: Ellen Kolb, Leaven for the Loaf Blog
