House Republicans Just Voted (Again) to Outlaw Abortions After 20 Weeks

Conservatives view the legislation as a cudgel against Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the author of the 2017 Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Cliff Owen/Associate Press

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

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act—a bill that outlaws most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and stipulates that anyone who performs one could face up to five years in prison—in a 237-to-189 vote. 

The House passed similar proposals in 2013 and 2015, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), but both measures failed in the Senate. Franks is also responsible for the latest version, which includes exceptions for rape, for incest, or to save the mother’s life—it, too, is unlikely to get through the Senate, where it would need a filibuster-proof 60 votes. But President Donald Trump has indicated he’d be willing to sign a 20-week ban if it lands on his desk. 

A federal 20-week ban is a longtime priority of anti-abortion groups, who hope to use it to test the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. Roe gave women the right to have an abortion only up until the age of viability—when a fetus can survive outside the womb. Most doctors put the age of viability at about 24 weeks.

In 1986, Northwestern University law professor Victor Rosenblum published a book, Abortion and the Constitution, that urged anti-abortion state legislators to pass laws that would incrementally roll back Roe by challenging the decision’s core findings, including the viability standard. Three years later, the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law that placed restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks.

The Missouri law’s author, Samuel Lee, told Mother Jones that his bill was “designed as an opportunity to attack” Roe. “The 20-week gestational age was chosen to push the envelope on when the state’s interest in the life of the unborn could take place,” he said. “It was chosen because it was earlier than the earliest limits of viability at the time, but not so early that the unborn child could never be viable.”

Since then, at least 17 states have enacted laws banning abortion after 20 weeks based on the (unfounded) idea that a fetus can feel pain beyond that point. Trump’s support for these bans, which he first made clear during the 2016 campaign, has resulted in a new push at the state level. This year, Ohio and Kentucky passed 20-week bans and a handful of other states have introduced new measures.

Abortions after 20 weeks, also known as “later abortions,” are rare: In 2011, of the more than 1 million women who ended their pregnancies, only about 13,000 did so after 20 weeks. In many cases, those women chose to have an abortion only after learning of devastating fetal anomalies likely to seriously diminish the quality of life for the child and its family.

In 2015, Mother Jones spoke with a half-dozen women who’d had abortions after 20 weeks about why they’d made the choice to terminate their pregnancies and how a ban would affect them. One, Heather, was just over the 20-week mark when she was told her fetus had alobar holoprosencephaly. “If he makes it to term,” she recalled being told, “he will undoubtedly die very quickly.”  

“Twenty-week bans are devastating for women like me. Because you never know. If you’d have told me years ago that I’d be sitting here having this conversation with you, I’d have laughed,” Heather added. “Nobody can tell me I didn’t do the right thing for my son. And I will be damned if I’m going to keep quiet. Because that’s my son, and his story is all I have of him.”

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