Hardline pro-abortion Democrats push to expand ‘sanctuaries’ nationwide

Pro-abortion activists are angry. They want Democrats in Washington to come up with a cohesive plan to limit or reverse the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Democrats, in turn, are scrambling to do all they can to expand abortion on demand, something they might take for granted for nearly 50 years.

Last week, left-leaning senators introduced the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2022. Led by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the bill is a response to claims that “radical” pro-life states could pass laws prohibiting women from traveling across state lines for an abortion.

But Bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Banning such trips would clearly violate the Constitution. A state has the right to decide whether it will protect unborn life, but it does not have the right to impose its own laws on another state or limit the movement of its residents.

The Freedom to Travel for Health Reasons Act reaffirms a person’s fundamental right to travel to another state. A person can engage in illegal activities in their own state if they travel to a state where it is legal. For example, a resident of Utah has the legal right to travel to Nevada for prostitution or gambling, although both are illegal in Utah.

The Murray Bill prohibits any person or government from restricting, discriminating against, or taking legal action against three groups of people: women seeking out-of-state abortions; a person, entity or not-for-profit organization that assists with transportation; and a health care provider performing an abortion on a woman from a pro-life state.

Taking a page from the Texas playbook, the bill includes a private right of action against anyone who gets in the way.

Key elements of the bill relate to where the doctor can perform an abortion. A first reading of the text affirms the constitutional right of women to travel for medical care. Although poorly worded, the bill affirms the right of a medical provider to perform an abortion if they meet two conditions: the provider must be licensed in the state where the medical procedure would take place and the abortion must be legal in this state.

States like California, New York, and Connecticut have passed “safe harbor” laws that define themselves as abortion “sanctuaries.” These laws exempt medical professionals from lawsuits or subpoenas from the patient’s home state. They even include funds for travel, childcare and housing. Such laws benefit vulnerable women, as they offer them little legal recourse in cases of medical malpractice or coercion.

If Murray’s bill were to pass, it would create abortion sanctuaries in every state with access to abortion. By protecting doctors or third parties from legal action, it endangers unborn children and women.

This would encourage abortion providers to solicit women outside their own state. These states would not just become abortion sanctuaries. They would become abortion magnets.

On Friday, the House voted to pass two extreme pro-abortion bills. First, the Women’s Health Protection Act would legalize abortion during nine months of pregnancy. It goes far beyond anything Roe v. Wade authorized. It threatens religious rights and no longer requires doctors to save the baby if it were to survive the abortion. It passed the House 219-210, on a vote close to the party line, with all Republicans and only one Democrat voting against.

The second bill, the Abortion Access Act, resembles Murray’s legislation, but with added protection for chemical abortion pills. Four of the five “protections” are aimed at doctors and women wishing to have an abortion. The bill ensures that doctors can perform an abortion in states where they are licensed and where it is legal. A woman traveling from another state must also adhere to the same protection guidelines.

Fifth Protection, however, guarantees the free flow of chemical abortion pills across state lines. To make matters worse, he doesn’t say he will only ship abortion pills to states where abortion is legal. It also does not require doctors to be licensed in the state where they send the pills via telemedicine.

This bill passed the House 223-205, with three Republicans joining all Democrats voting in favor.

If either of these bills were to pass the Senate, it would destroy all pro-life protections at the state and federal levels.

Although neither bill has much chance of passing the Senate, Democrats are desperate to appease their pro-abortion base.

Murray’s opening remarks at Wednesday’s Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on “Reproductive Care in a Post-Roe America” ​​accused Republicans of force women to remain pregnant against their will and risk death if diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. . Murray blurs the line between a pregnancy ending by natural means, such as a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy, and a pregnancy ending in an abortion.

By calling pregnancy – a natural and vital process – a “medical procedure”, she implies that abortion, on the other hand, is a natural option that all women desire.

This is not the case. As Brandi Swindell, CEO of Stanton Healthcare and the Stanton Public Policy Center, testified at the same hearing, many women report feeling pressured into having an abortion they didn’t want by a parent, husband or boyfriend.

Murray’s bill is supposed to sound like it’s dealing with a real problem, but it’s not. The bill claims to guarantee that women can cross state lines for “reproductive care.” But they already have that right under the Constitution.

Instead, the bill would protect doctors from liability and increase the use of chemical abortion pills, minors traveling across state lines and state funding for abortion travel.

By attacking the work of pregnancy care centers and slandering pro-life efforts, Democrats are reinforcing an incentive structure that is dangerous for women and deadly for their unborn children.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

About Bobby F. Lopez

Check Also

At the Capitol, Connecticut Latinos celebrate heritage and set priorities

Sandra Ferreira-Molina said that when she was 6 years old and her family immigrated from …