New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion

The term "forcible" may have been removed from HR 3, but there are other bills that are aimed at reducing access to reproductive care for women being offered by the GOP.  HR 358 would allow hospitals to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even if the woman's life is in danger.

The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

Read more at Talking Points Memo

Radio Silence On Rape-Redefining Abortion Bill From The Right

Elected officials and even anti-choice groups seem reluctant to discuss H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," especially the section that would potentially redefine rape.

The Republican-controlled House is considering new limitations on federal funding for abortion that could be a crown jewel of the GOP leadership's attempt to show its constituents there's a new, socially conservative sheriff in town -- if anyone was willing to discuss it, that is.

It seems one of the only people willing to talk at all about the controversial abortion bill is one of its Democratic co-sponsors, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL). And he's not willing to embrace the language in the bill that appears to redefine rape in a way that would prevent some impregnated victims from having their abortions covered by insurance.

Read more at TPM

Anti-abortion group aims to influence race for RNC chairman

The anti-reproductive rights group, The Susan B. Anthony List, is working to ensure the next RNC Chairman is strongly anti-abortion.  This follows the recent appointment of Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to the Health Subcommittee chairmanship, which they promoted.  They are also pushing for the appointment of Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) to be chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

An anti-abortion group announced Wednesday it will launch a widespread e-mail campaign to elect a like-minded Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman.

The Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List, which is co-sponsoring a Jan. 3 RNC chairman debate, said it will reach 500,000 socially conservative activists with its campaign.

Read more at The Hill

Push for Stricter Abortion Limits Is Expected in House

Rep. Joe Pitts of PA has been selected as the incoming Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.  Rep. Pitts is strongly opposed to reproductive rights and his opposition to abortion access is a key part of his agenda as a Representative.  He co-authored the Stupak Amendment to the Health Care Reform Act, and his appointment signals a new assault on women and reproductive rights in the new Congress.

A leading Congressional opponent of abortion rights, who is in line to take charge of an influential House panel, plans to press for much stricter limits on the procedure.

The selection of the lawmaker, Representative Joe Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health presages a major shift on abortion and family planning, according to opponents and supporters of abortion rights.

Opponents of abortion gained about 45 seats in the midterm elections, and they count the next speaker, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, as a staunch ally, virtually guaranteeing more conflicts with the White House on the issue.

Read more at  The New York Times