White House endorses ‘radical’ pro-abortion bill that would go beyond Roe v. Wade

On Monday, the White House reversed a previous stance and gave its endorsement to the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) — a bill which pro-life legislators refer to as the “Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act” — a broad-reaching bill that would eliminate federal and state pro-life policies while guaranteeing abortion access up to birth — doing away with any and all state restrictions on abortion, even after a child is able to survive outside the womb (viability).

The White House’s endorsement is seen as a response to the Texas Heartbeat Act, which restricts abortion after a preborn child’s heartbeat is detected.

The New York Times reports that the House plans to vote on the WHPA on Friday, where it is expected to pass. However, it faces a much greater challenge in the Senate, where it has little chance of advancing due to Republican opposition. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), typically one of the few Republican supporters of pro-abortion legislation, has stated that she feels the bill goes too far (though she supports codifying Roe) and would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Abortion supporters have long sought to do away with conscience protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in abortion, and Collins believes the bill would do exactly that.

The Hill reports that in its statement Monday, the White House called the Texas Heartbeat Act a violation of Roe v. Wade, saying it “impairs women’s access to critical reproductive health care, particularly affecting communities of color, individuals with low incomes, and those who live in rural or underserved communities.”

“In the wake of Texas’ unprecedented attack, it has never been more important to codify this constitutional right and to strengthen health care access for all women, regardless of where they live,” added the administration.

In reality, the WHPA is an incredibly damaging piece of legislation, one that endangers the lives of preborn children, the health and safety and women, and conscience protections for medical providers — all while forcing taxpayers to fund abortion.

Why Abortion Restrictions Matter

In a report for The Heritage Foundation, policy analyst Melanie Israel outlined many of the dangers of the legislation. While the White House claims it wants to “codify the constitutional right” to abortion, Israel says that the bill would actually do much more than that. “The bill would effectively repeal existing state laws, expressly prohibit future laws that regulate abortion and the abortion industry, and place at risk long-standing federal policies that reflect more than 40 years of bipartisan consensus,” she writes.

READ: The Women’s Health Protection Act treats women as inferior to men

Israel notes that the passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act would do the following:

• Prevent state protections that restrict abortion based on sex, race, or diagnosis of a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome

• Prevent states from enacting policies that protect children after they are old enough to survive outside the womb

• Prevent states from enacting critical informed-consent policies that enable women to be fully informed about their decisions

• Prevent states from implementing safety restrictions regarding chemical abortion (despite the fact that these abortions are four times more dangerous than surgical abortions)

• Prevent states from regulating abortion facilities

• Threaten conscience protections for medical professionals, forcing them to partake in abortions

• Threaten policies that restrict taxpayer funding of abortion

To sum it up, Israel writes:

If enacted, the Women’s Health Protection Act would threaten hundreds of state and federal pro-life policies that have been enacted by duly elected representatives in response to the wishes of their constituents. Broadly supported consensus policies, including restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions and policies that protect both women and unborn children from inhumane late-term abortion procedures, would be put in jeopardy.

Despite claims that it simply codifies Roe v. Wade, the bill mandates an abortion regime that would be far more radical than the status quo.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!