The House will vote this week on legislation imposing criminal penalties on anyone performing an abortion based on the sex of the child, but the measure runs the risk of failing on the floor because of how the GOP is calling it up.
Republican leaders have scheduled a vote on H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), under a suspension of House rules, which will require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Suspension votes are usually reserved for non-controversial bills, but Republican leaders have occasionally used the process for bills that Democrats oppose, and the PRENDA bill appears to be one of those.
Democratic opposition to the bill began with its original name, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-discrimination Act. Democrats argued in February that while the bill was named after these civil rights heroes, it has nothing to do with protecting civil rights.
The original name reflected that the bill also sought to ban abortions based on the race of the child. But Republicans agreed to strike that language from the bill as it was being considered in the Judiciary committee, and also changed the name of the bill.
Still, the bill was voted out of committee with only Republican support. That partisan vote, and Democrats' ongoing opposition to the bill, could make it difficult for the bill to be approved by a two-thirds vote on the floor. Roughly 50 Democrats would need to join Republicans to pass the bill under suspension of the rules.
More from The Hill:
♦ Romney: Obama desperate for 'twig to hold on to' on economy
♦ Trump, Romney's surrogate, goes on ‘birther’ offensive
BoehnerJohn BoehnerIn House GOP, Ryan endorsement of Trump seen as inevitable House GOP faces dilemma on spending bills Overnight Finance: Puerto Rico bill clears panel | IRS chief vows to finish term | Bill would require nominees to release tax returns MORE-offered-electronic-cigarettes-as-alternative-to-tobacco" mce_href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/229839-boehner-offered-electronic-cigarettes-as-alternative-to-tobacco"> ♦ EverSmoke offers Boehner e-cigarettes
♦ Romney ad hits Obama for ‘wasting’ tax dollars on Solyndra
♦ Juan Williams: Big Brother looms over cybersecurity bill
♦ Judd Gregg: Taking French path will lead America to dead end
♦ Pentagon denies US special forces deployed in North Korea
♦ Schumer asks airlines to drop preferred-seat fees for children
Democrats point out that the suspension vote violates the Republicans' own rules, which say they will not schedule bills for consideration under a suspension of the rules if they are opposed by more than one-third of committee members. The Judiciary Committee approved the bill 20-13, with all Democrats voting against.
Despite the changes in committee, Democrats argue that the bill looks to erect new hurdles to women's right to abortion. The legislation looks to ensure there are no gender-based abortions by authorizing fines and prison terms of up to five years against doctors who perform these abortions, and requires health professionals to report suspected violations of the law.
"This legislation violates a woman's right to privacy as affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade," Conyers said after the committee approved the legislation. "The bill would require doctors to police their patients, undermining patient-doctor privilege. It limits a woman's right to choose and jeopardizes her access to safe, legal medical care."
Rep. Trent FranksTrent FranksDems: House GOP just like Trump Supreme Court wrestles with corruption law House GOP reignites push for budget plan MORE (R-Ariz.) said when he introduced the bill that his aim is to ensure equal rights for unborn children. In December, his office put out a statement stressing the race language in the original bill, which said, "A minority baby is currently five times more likely to be aborted than a white baby, and nearly half of all black babies are aborted, with over 70 percent of abortion clinics being located in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
"Our innate sense of human fairness should make it abundantly clear that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be black or because he or she has been arbitrarily deemed 'lesser' is fundamentally wrong," Franks said.
— This story was updated at 12:11 to correct that the bill no longer includes language related to race-based abortions.