Post-20-Week D.C. Abortion Ban Bill Defeated

Photo by PoPville flickr user thisisbossi

From the office of Eleanor Holmes Norton:

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today released the following statement on the defeat in the House of H.R. 3803, a bill sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) that would have banned abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy:

“Seldom does the District win a vote on the floor of the House this big. Republicans failed to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary on a bill that would have denied District of Columbia residents of their constitutional rights for the first time in American history. Women’s groups, among them Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, helped us blow the whistle on a bill that used D.C. residents to target the reproductive rights of women across the nation. Every member of the House, except the one representing the only district affected by the bill, had a vote on the bill. During floor debate, Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) asked Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the sponsor of the bill, why his bills was not introduced as a national bill, Franks never answered. Women understood the answer, however. The D.C. label fooled no one. And, in the end, I am grateful that an overwhelming majority of Democrats stuck with the District and refused to cross over to be a party to this abuse of congressional power. The bill has had the effect House Republicans most dreaded. It has reinvigorated the pro-choice movement in our country, raising the consciousness of American women again to understand that their right to reproductive choice is always on the line.”

24 Comment

  • THANK F***ING GOD!!!!!!!


  • This is great news.

    Extremely Conservative PoPer

  • HECK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Good news. But… “bill that would have denied District of Columbia residents of their constitutional rights for the first time in American history.”

    Actually that is false, we still have firearms laws that violate constitutional rights.

    • Yup, “a bill that would have denied District of Columbia residents of their constitutional rights for the first time in American history,” is incorrect.

      Like Scalia says, the constitution allows some regulation and restriction on behaviors, including gun ownership. Not allowing DC to have stricter hand gun laws robs DC residents of THAT constitutional right.

    • You and your “wel regulated militia” hurting for guns?

  • Rant: The fact this came to a vote

    Rave: The fact it failed!!!!!

    • +100

      funny how it went on the suspension calendar – usually the ‘easy to pass’ bills end up there. clearly someone wasn’t vote counting properly, which is fine by me.

      it’s one thing to have a dysfunctional city council running dc, it’s a whole other to have someone who has no vested interest in dc making decisions for dc residents.

  • Hey Republicans! Don’t Tread on Me!!!

  • Awesome. Is that a real tattoo??!

  • FANTASTIC photo. Look at those guns! Keep fighting for us, Eleanor!

  • very sad to hear this

    • that must be because you don’t know what it really means.

      • Because the only reason one could possibly disagree with your value system is because they fail to understand an issue… You don’t get more prochoice than I am, but I still realize that some may disagree without being in possession of a substandard ability to reason.

        • No. This isn’t about being pro-choice or anti-choice… this is about the rights of a people to govern themselves. We don’t have statehood therefore the federal government decides what we do but we don’t even have a vote in those decisions. I’m pro-choice and generally speaking bigger government… but even I have to say the way DC is treated is pretty sub-par. Statehood is the only answer to these problems.

  • for those wondering it was brought to the floor as a “strategic” vote with full knowledge that it would likely not pass. the pro-life groups were pushing this big so it appeased them and it also forced lots of moderate Dems in swing districts to take a vote on an issue they would rather not with a few months before the election.

    • I’ve been waiting for someone to respond realizing what this was really about… Anyone who thought this was intended to pass didn’t quite get it.

    • Thanks for explaining it. I’m one of the few people in DC that has never taken a Political Science course in my life and these things aren’t obvious to me.

Comments are closed.