(Pregnancy Help News) — The Pennsylvania House of Representatives narrowly passed an amendment to the state constitution last week that would allow abortion on demand up until birth.

The 102-101 final House vote held December 17, with two Democrats and two Republicans voting against, was the first of seven radical abortion bills before the Pennsylvania legislature.

Local pro-life advocates are calling the bill an abortionist’s dream, and if enacted, the most radical law in the nation.

If passed, House Bill 1957 would enshrine abortion at all stages of pregnancy in the state constitution based upon so-called “personal reproductive liberty” and result in all current Pennsylvania restrictions and safeguards for abortion, including parental consent, informed consent, and the 24-hour waiting period, being overridden. Currently in Pennsylvania, abortion is legal until 24 weeks or the point of viability. The bill’s broad language could also mean taxpayer-funded abortion and non-physicians committing abortions.

Couched by supporters in “reproductive rights” language, the bill is also feared to enable abortion practitioners to end the lives of viable born-alive infants.

While the radical abortion bill still has some hurdles to clear, pro-life advocates are also concerned that pro-abortion voices, some making questionable statements regarding abortion, had an outsized impact on the House passage of the bill. 

The Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative (PPWC) has been publicly opposing HB 1957 since it was introduced earlier this year, with President Sarah Bowen and others in the Collaborative meeting repeatedly with legislators about their concerns over it and the six other abortion-related bills before the legislature.

Democrat Representative Arvind Venkat, an emergency room doctor, testified before the House Judiciary Committee the day before the December 17 House vote approving HB 1957, making what Collaborative members deemed outrageous statements about late-term and elective abortions. Venkat also conflated emergency Cesarean section procedures with abortion.

Venkat told the Judiciary Committee there is “no such thing as an elective abortion” at the end of a pregnancy, proceeding to present extreme scenarios of pregnant women experiencing cardiac arrest from trauma, hemorrhage, or sepsis, inferring the women would need abortion as an intervention - though discussing emergency C-sections.

“As an emergency physician, I am trained to even perform what's called a perimortem C-section, which is that when a pregnant woman comes in cardiac arrest and they are post-viability,” Venkat said. “If we're not able to resuscitate them, to actually perform a C-section in the emergency department post-mortem to try and deliver the fetus.”

Venkat said this procedure does not often work, and therefore the only choice is to keep a woman “from death’s door.”

“I would urge this body to recognize the existing body of medical evidence and to support this amendment in recognizing that fetal viability is determinative and that we can make this judgment medically in medical circumstances,” Venkat said.

PPWC members are confident Venkat’s testimony influenced the House Judiciary Committee to advance the bill to the House floor for a vote.

“These lectures have an impact,” said Amy Scheuring, executive director of Pittsburgh’s Network of Life and PPWC member, “and often are an effort to gain sympathy from legislators who may not normally vote in favor of third trimester abortion,” but would consider it based on the testimony.

Scheuring, who had hosted Venkat for a tour of her center in the days before the House vote on HB 1975, part of an ongoing PPWC effort to invite legislators to pregnancy help centers since the Dobbs ruling, provided Venkat’s statements to Pregnancy Help News from a video recording of the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Scheuring said the PPWC immediately presented a rebuttal of Venkat’s remarks to House representatives. Scheuring reached out to Dr. Christina Cirucci, a board-certified OB/GYN practicing in Allegheny County, Pa., providing her video clips of Venkat’s testimony. Cirucci prepared a response which was forwarded to the Pennsylvania Family Institute which in turn had the statement sent to all House legislators on the morning of December 17. 

In the statement Cirucci said “the large majority of late term abortions are indeed elective abortions.”

She also challenged Venkat’s emergency C-section comments.

 “This is not an abortion; it’s a rescue attempt,” Cirucci said.

“Rep Venkat should know better than to conflate a perimortem C-section with an abortion,” said Cirucci. “No abortion restriction will ever restrict a peri-mortem C-section, a procedure that is so rare that in all my years working in obstetrics, I have never performed this procedure.”

Nonetheless, HB 1957 passed the Pennsylvania House.

Scheuring commended several pro-life legislators who have gone to bat against the bill.

“We were really gratified to see and hear our State Representatives using our talking points to persuade and inform their colleagues,” she told Pregnancy Help News. “We heard their shift toward language about maternal health outcomes, harm to women using online abortion pills, and reframing the specific solutions that pregnancy centers offer.”

While members of PPWC are grieved by the vote, they are not giving up.

“Though we were disappointed with Wednesday's vote and while we are not sure about what will happen next in our Senate, the PPWC is preparing a broad education campaign to build positive messaging about pregnancy center work while keeping a focus on ways abortion expansion harms women,” Scheuring said. “As a beginning point, we added a Physician's Statement on Abortion Pills to our website,” she added. “And perhaps a tool that will be most effective going forward is our "She's not ok" blog of actual client outcomes after using the abortion pill. The stories are horrendous, painful, and need to be heard.”

Other bills waiting to get a vote include House Bill 670 which targets pregnancy centers and other groups in the pregnancy help movement.

If passed, the bill would subject those who help a woman choose life in favor of abortion to a fine of $3,000 and up to a year in prison. If a female makes an appointment with an abortion facility but visits a pregnancy center in advance of the visit and as a result changes her mind about keeping her baby, it is viewed as stealing a client from the abortion provider. Those praying outside abortion centers are subject to the same punishment.

House Bill 2005 removes the state’s informed consent law, which requires counsel for abortion alternatives and a 24-hour waiting period to make an abortion decision. Other bills include shield laws which protect abortion providers from prosecution.

It was not known at press time when these bills would go to the House floor for a vote. As a constitutional amendment, HB 1957 would have to pass both chambers in two consecutive sessions, then be approved by voters. Thus, local pro-life advocates are calling on lawmakers and others to oppose HB 1957.      

(Pregnancy Help News) — The Pennsylvania House of Representatives narrowly passed an amendment to the state constitution last week that would allow abortion on demand up until birth.

The 102-101 final House vote held December 17, with two Democrats and two Republicans voting against, was the first of seven radical abortion bills before the Pennsylvania legislature.

Local pro-life advocates are calling the bill an abortionist’s dream, and if enacted, the most radical law in the nation.

If passed, House Bill 1957 would enshrine abortion at all stages of pregnancy in the state constitution based upon so-called “personal reproductive liberty” and result in all current Pennsylvania restrictions and safeguards for abortion, including parental consent, informed consent, and the 24-hour waiting period, being overridden. Currently in Pennsylvania, abortion is legal until 24 weeks or the point of viability. The bill’s broad language could also mean taxpayer-funded abortion and non-physicians committing abortions.

Couched by supporters in “reproductive rights” language, the bill is also feared to enable abortion practitioners to end the lives of viable born-alive infants.

While the radical abortion bill still has some hurdles to clear, pro-life advocates are also concerned that pro-abortion voices, some making questionable statements regarding abortion, had an outsized impact on the House passage of the bill. 

The Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative (PPWC) has been publicly opposing HB 1957 since it was introduced earlier this year, with President Sarah Bowen and others in the Collaborative meeting repeatedly with legislators about their concerns over it and the six other abortion-related bills before the legislature.

Democrat Representative Arvind Venkat, an emergency room doctor, testified before the House Judiciary Committee the day before the December 17 House vote approving HB 1957, making what Collaborative members deemed outrageous statements about late-term and elective abortions. Venkat also conflated emergency Cesarean section procedures with abortion.

Venkat told the Judiciary Committee there is “no such thing as an elective abortion” at the end of a pregnancy, proceeding to present extreme scenarios of pregnant women experiencing cardiac arrest from trauma, hemorrhage, or sepsis, inferring the women would need abortion as an intervention - though discussing emergency C-sections.

“As an emergency physician, I am trained to even perform what's called a perimortem C-section, which is that when a pregnant woman comes in cardiac arrest and they are post-viability,” Venkat said. “If we're not able to resuscitate them, to actually perform a C-section in the emergency department post-mortem to try and deliver the fetus.”

Venkat said this procedure does not often work, and therefore the only choice is to keep a woman “from death’s door.”

“I would urge this body to recognize the existing body of medical evidence and to support this amendment in recognizing that fetal viability is determinative and that we can make this judgment medically in medical circumstances,” Venkat said.

PPWC members are confident Venkat’s testimony influenced the House Judiciary Committee to advance the bill to the House floor for a vote.

“These lectures have an impact,” said Amy Scheuring, executive director of Pittsburgh’s Network of Life and PPWC member, “and often are an effort to gain sympathy from legislators who may not normally vote in favor of third trimester abortion,” but would consider it based on the testimony.

Scheuring, who had hosted Venkat for a tour of her center in the days before the House vote on HB 1975, part of an ongoing PPWC effort to invite legislators to pregnancy help centers since the Dobbs ruling, provided Venkat’s statements to Pregnancy Help News from a video recording of the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Scheuring said the PPWC immediately presented a rebuttal of Venkat’s remarks to House representatives. Scheuring reached out to Dr. Christina Cirucci, a board-certified OB/GYN practicing in Allegheny County, Pa., providing her video clips of Venkat’s testimony. Cirucci prepared a response which was forwarded to the Pennsylvania Family Institute which in turn had the statement sent to all House legislators on the morning of December 17. 

In the statement Cirucci said “the large majority of late term abortions are indeed elective abortions.”

She also challenged Venkat’s emergency C-section comments.

 “This is not an abortion; it’s a rescue attempt,” Cirucci said.

“Rep Venkat should know better than to conflate a perimortem C-section with an abortion,” said Cirucci. “No abortion restriction will ever restrict a peri-mortem C-section, a procedure that is so rare that in all my years working in obstetrics, I have never performed this procedure.”

Nonetheless, HB 1957 passed the Pennsylvania House.

Scheuring commended several pro-life legislators who have gone to bat against the bill.

“We were really gratified to see and hear our State Representatives using our talking points to persuade and inform their colleagues,” she told Pregnancy Help News. “We heard their shift toward language about maternal health outcomes, harm to women using online abortion pills, and reframing the specific solutions that pregnancy centers offer.”

While members of PPWC are grieved by the vote, they are not giving up.

“Though we were disappointed with Wednesday's vote and while we are not sure about what will happen next in our Senate, the PPWC is preparing a broad education campaign to build positive messaging about pregnancy center work while keeping a focus on ways abortion expansion harms women,” Scheuring said. “As a beginning point, we added a Physician's Statement on Abortion Pills to our website,” she added. “And perhaps a tool that will be most effective going forward is our "She's not ok" blog of actual client outcomes after using the abortion pill. The stories are horrendous, painful, and need to be heard.”

Other bills waiting to get a vote include House Bill 670 which targets pregnancy centers and other groups in the pregnancy help movement.

If passed, the bill would subject those who help a woman choose life in favor of abortion to a fine of $3,000 and up to a year in prison. If a female makes an appointment with an abortion facility but visits a pregnancy center in advance of the visit and as a result changes her mind about keeping her baby, it is viewed as stealing a client from the abortion provider. Those praying outside abortion centers are subject to the same punishment.

House Bill 2005 removes the state’s informed consent law, which requires counsel for abortion alternatives and a 24-hour waiting period to make an abortion decision. Other bills include shield laws which protect abortion providers from prosecution.

It was not known at press time when these bills would go to the House floor for a vote. As a constitutional amendment, HB 1957 would have to pass both chambers in two consecutive sessions, then be approved by voters. Thus, local pro-life advocates are calling on lawmakers and others to oppose HB 1957.