House passes two bills to allow unrestricted abortion access across U.S. states

congress, pro-choice caucus

Pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 (WHPA) and The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act (EAAA) on Friday, which would respectively codify the now-fallen Roe v. Wade abortion provisions into federal law (forcing states to allow unlimited abortion access) and would disallow any interference in a woman’s ability to obtain abortions across state lines. The vote on the WHPA was 219-210 and was almost entirely along party lines, with Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas being the only Democrat to vote against it. The EAAA passed by a vote of 223-205, with all Democrats voting in favor, along with three Republicans —Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) and Fred Upton (Mich.).

Key Takeaways:

The Women’s Health Protection Act

  • Would nullify state laws protecting preborn children any time before “viability” — which is broadly defined and left to abortion profiteers to interpret.
  • Would disallow abortion providers from giving women whatever information the government deems to be “inaccurate.” This term is also undefined.
  • Defines the beginning of pregnancy but does not define the end of pregnancy, possibly opening the door to infanticide.
  • Would allow abortions after viability for any reasons affecting the “life or health” of the mother, as determined by abortionist, who is expected to use “good-faith judgment.”
  • Would remove restrictions on any specific types of abortion procedures, which could undo the federal ban on D&X (partial-birth) abortion, in which a living child is delivered breech up to the head and his or her brain is removed by suction.
  •  Claims any restrictions on the killing of preborn human beings are a barrier to women’s “basic autonomy, dignity, and equality.”

The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act…

  • Requires that no state will be allowed to “prevent, restrict, impede, or retaliate against” any “health care provider’s ability to provide, initiate, or otherwise enable an abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the service is to be provided to a patient who does not reside in that State,” including the restricting of the abortion pill’s distribution — something certain states have already done.

H.R. 8296 may be dubbed the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” but as pointed out by Susan B. Anthony (SBA) Pro-life America, it should be known as the “Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act.” The bill aims to permit gruesome late-term dismemberment abortions on undelivered babies old enough to survive outside the womb. It would also allow discriminatory abortion based on sex, race, or a child’s health diagnosis such as Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis. It would reduce safety regulations for abortion businesses. In addition, it has the potential to force taxpayer-funded abortion on Americans and force medical professionals to participate in abortions against their conscience. It would nullify state laws, including those that have taken effect since the overturning of Roe v. Wade last month.

A right to kill for any reason, at any time, by any means

The WHPA states that health care providers have a right to kill via “a statutory right… to provide abortion services” and women have right to have their baby killed via “a corresponding right to receive such services without … limitations or requirements.” (emphasis added)

In addition, under the Act, an abortionist must be allowed to commit abortion services via telemedicine (despite the increased risk to women), and must not be forced to have hospital admitting privileges (which ensure women get the medical care they need after a botched abortion). Abortion workers must not give women what the government deems to be “inaccurate” information. Since this sort of “government-deemed inaccurate” information is undefined and broad, it is theoretically possible that the government could decide that providing women with information about fetal development (such as that a living, undelivered child has a heartbeat 21 days from fertilization) is “inaccurate” — when it isn’t.

In addition, there is not to be a restriction on abortion “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure” and women are not required to give a reason for the abortion. This could welcome back the federally-banned D&X abortion procedure in which the child is delivered breech and alive up to the neck and is killed when the abortionist stabs her at the base of the skull and suctions out her brain. It could also pave the way for infanticide as the bill defines pregnancy as “the period of the human reproductive process beginning with the implantation of a fertilized egg” but fails to define the end of the human reproductive process.

Under the Act, there is also to be no “prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” This rule is unnecessary, because if the child is “viable” then she can be delivered alive through preterm labor or emergency C-section and have a chance of surviving. These procedures are not abortion, which is the intentional killing of the undelivered baby.

No good doctor, in good conscience, would take the time to intentionally kill a child prior to delivery especially if the mother had every intention of birthing her baby alive. However, the Act does not define “health” — and therefore, health could mean physical health, mental health, or even financial health.

Abortion does not equal equality

Finally, the sponsors and supporters of the WHPA claim that abortion restrictions “are a tool of gender oppression, as they target health care services that are used primarily by women” and that such restrictions “harm the basic autonomy, dignity, and equality of women, and their ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.”

In other words, the inherent equality that exists between men and women is meaningless under this Act and women are not considered equal by the government unless they have the “right” to kill their children, as men have long been able to abandon theirs. The legislators in support of this Act appear to believe that mothers are incapable of participating in the social and economic life of the nation, but dignity is not to be found when a woman is drugged and “pants down” when they (for the first and only time) meet with the abortionist who will kill her baby.

Furthermore, the Act claims that abortion restrictions “perpetuate systems of […] white supremacy, and anti-Black racism” including “experimentation on Black women.” However, there is nothing racist about pro-life laws that save the lives of Black babies and pregnancy centers that help women choose life with confidence regardless of their race.

It was, in fact, Planned Parenthood that came into existence through racist plans to prevent Black and poor women from having babies. And it was a member of Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors, Clarence Gamble, who funded the North Carolina eugenics program that forcibly sterilized Black women.

The Ensuring Access to Abortion Act

What is Live Action News?

Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective. Learn More

Contact for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.

GUEST ARTICLES: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated. (See here for Open License Agreement.) Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!

To Top