GOP Reps. Go After DC Abortions Again

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/telekon/6753044665/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Chris Wieland</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last April, Congress reached a détente on the budget by re-imposing a ban on using local funds to pay for abortions in Washington, DC. Since the capitol city is essentially a ward of the federal government, Congress gets to control what happens here—even when it’s DC’s own money. Now, an Arizona congressman wants to go a step farther in limiting abortion in the District by imposing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Republican Trent Franks introduced his “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” this week with the approval of anti-abortion groups. National Right to Life, which created the model legislation Franks’ bill is based on, has called passing the DC ban one of its top priorities this year.

DC has long been a pawn in the congressional chess game over abortion rights. There was a ban on using local funds for abortions in place from 1988 through 1993 and 1995 through 2009. Then it was repealed again before coming back in 2011. DC women have been treated as “nothing more than a bargaining chip,” Val Vilott, the board president of the DC Abortion Fund, a group that helps low-income women in the city pay for abortions, said Thursday at the annual NARAL Pro-Choice America dinner.

Franks’ 20-week ban would represent a new level of congressional “oversight” on what happens in DC. “The politicians who say they want local control and smaller government exposed their hypocrisy,” Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL, said of the Frank bill on Thursday night. 

A number of states have passed or attempted to pass 20-week abortion bans in the past few years. All these bills are based on the argument that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks gestation—an argument that is not supported by the bulk of the science on the subject to date. In states that have passed the law, it has created a signifcant barrier to women who need later-term abortions for a variety of reasons. But in those states, the bans came from the state’s elected legislature, not from some guy from Arizona whom DC taxpayers have never voted into office.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate