FACT SHEET
Stop Congress from Interfering in D.C.
Women’s Access to Health Care
February 2012
H.R. 3803, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and S. 2103, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee
(R-UT), would prohibit abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
These bills are further attempts to undermine the constitutional rights of District of
Columbia women and impose cruel and dangerous abortion restrictions. They challenge
D.C.’s right to govern itself and impose an ideological agenda on women’s health care. The
sponsors of these bills want to dictate the private decisions of women despite the objections
of their own elected representatives. These bills would
interfere in the relationship between a woman and her
doctor, and deprive her of the ability to make an
“I think that we have decided in
extremely personal medical decision.
this House that they have home
The National Partnership urges members of
Congress to reject these bills and all proposals that
endanger the health and well-being of D.C. women
and families.
rule for things that we like, but
they do not have home rule for
what we do not like.”
— Rep. James Bilbray, anti-choice former
member of Congress
D.C. restrictions are undemocratic
These bills would fly in the face of home rule, usurp the prerogatives of the local D.C.
government, and trample the rights of District of Columbia residents. Congress already
unjustly imposes a ban on Medicaid funding of abortion in D.C. that limits D.C. women’s
access to health care, whereas the 50 states have the freedom to decide whether abortion care
will be covered in public insurance programs or not. These bills would compound that unjust
and harmful restriction.
D.C.’s elected representatives oppose these restrictions. All members of Congress should
agree that, like other jurisdictions, the District of Columbia is best positioned to address the
health needs of its residents.
Abortion bans threaten women’s health and rights
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not ban abortion prior
to the point of viability and that, even after viability, abortion must be available to preserve a
1
woman’s health. Yet these bills:
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20009
202.986.2600 | www.NationalPartnership.org
 Create an unconstitutional pre-viability restriction on abortion; and
 Provide no health exceptions and only very limited
life exceptions that do not adequately protect
women’s health.
Only a tiny proportion of abortions (1.5 percent) take
2
place after 20 weeks. Like every abortion, each of these
decisions involves circumstances unique to the woman
and her pregnancy that she is best able to handle. A ban
only creates an impossible situation for a woman in
already difficult circumstances.
A woman and her doctor are in the best position to
decide whether an abortion is the right decision. These
bills impose a cruel ban on D.C. women, forcing them to
continue pregnancies that may endanger their health or
where the fetus may not survive.
“Terminating was the last thing I
wanted to do …. But I thought of
every person in the situation,
including my baby, and realized
the only ones I could save were
the living.”
— Tara Schleifer, testifying before a Virginia
Senate Committee on having an abortion
after 20 weeks upon finding out the fetus had
severe abnormalities incompatible with life
H.R. 3803 and S. 2103 are Cruel and Unacceptable
These outrageous bills are allegedly based on the strongly disputed notion that fetuses can
feel pain after 20 weeks. And they ignore the health, rights and suffering of D.C. women.
These bills include no exceptions for situations of severe fetal anomaly and include only a
very limited life exception. The life exception specifically excludes situations where a woman
is considering ending her life or is suffering from mental health problems. Without these
exceptions, vulnerable women are forced into extraordinarily dangerous situations.
Moreover, these bills would force doctors to perform abortions in ways that are more likely to
preserve the life of the fetus, even if that puts the woman’s health in significant jeopardy.
These bills would also limit access to all abortion care by imposing criminal and civil liability
on abortion providers. They would allow the woman, as well as the man involved – or the
woman’s parents if she is a minor – to sue physicians who allegedly violate the law, making
doctors more reluctant to provide this essential care. The bills would also require physicians
to report details of all abortions performed in the District of Columbia and impose fines and
disciplinary actions for failure to comply, imposing unnecessary burdens on doctors and
threatening women’s privacy.
1
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
2
Guttmacher Institute. (2011, August). In Brief: Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. Retrieved January 10, 2012 at
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and
policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family. More information is available at www.NationalPartnership.org.
© 2012 National Partnership for Women & Families, All rights reserved.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN & FAMILIES | FACT SHEET | STOP INTERFERENCE IN D.C. WOMEN’S ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
2