The 20-Week Abortion Ban Just Died in the Senate, But Pro-Lifers Will Still Celebrate Tonight

The largely symbolic vote was designed to put red state Democrats in an awkward position.

Riccardo Savi/AP

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

Update January 29, 2018 8:00PM EST.: Senate Republicans couldn’t overcome a Democratic filibuster of their 20-week abortion ban Monday night. The bill, the latest version of a ban pro-Lifers have been pushing for decades, failed a procedural vote 51-49, nine short of the 60 required for it to advance. The vote was not strictly along partisan lines as three Democrats up for reelection in 2018 from states Trump carried in 2016—Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania—voted for the ban, while two Republicans—Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—voted against it. 

Earlier this month, Donald Trump became the first sitting president to address the March for Life, an annual rally held that serves as the nation’s preeminent anti-abortion event. In his speech to the crowd assembled on Washington DC’s National Mall, broadcast via live video feed, he urged Senators to vote for a 20-week abortion ban.

“I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing,” Trump said.

With only 51 Republican senators, the ban, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, is unlikely to get the 60 votes it needs to advance to the president’s desk when the Senate holds a procedural vote tonight. But the vote signals anti-abortion campaigners growing success in pushing a 20-week ban. Similar proposals have passed the House three times since 2013, most recently in October, but have only made it to the Senate floor once before, in 2015.

Anti-abortion advocates have long seen the bans as a key tool in their arsenal to undermine or undo Roe v. Wade, and as a valuable wedge issue to deploy against Democrats seeking reelection in pro-life leaning states or districts. 

The bill would make it a crime, punishable with fines or up to five years in prison, to perform abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade protects the right to an abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb—typically at about 24 weeks.  Slightly over 1 percent of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later, often because of the discovery of a fetal anomaly, or because a woman lacked income or other resources to obtain the procedure earlier. The proposed bill contains limited exceptions for victims of rape or incest, but no exception to protect a woman’s health.

Twenty-week abortion bans have been passed in 21 states. Federal courts have struck down the bans in two states, and legal challenges are ongoing in several others. 

In 2015, Democratic Sens. Bob Casey (Penn.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), and Joe Donnelly (Ind.)—crossed party lines to vote in favor of a 20-week ban. All three are up for reelection in 2018, along with a number of other Democrats from purple or red states. Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) both voted against 2015’s 20-week ban, even though a majority of their states’ voters support such a measure. Anti-abortion electoral groups like the Susan B. Anthony List have warned the senators they intend to target them in 2018. “We’re especially looking at Missouri and North Dakota and the women that represent them,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. “We will absolutely be on the ground.”

The vote also presents an opportunity for Trump to remind anti-abortion voters that he’s on their side. During the presidential campaign, Trump wooed the Republican party’s conservative base with promises to deliver on key anti-abortion priorities, including a 20-week abortion ban. He has delivered on a number of such commitments, by undoing Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate and allowing states to withhold non-abortion family planning funding from providers who also offer abortions. But the Senate has so far blocked other anti-abortion priorities, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

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