Women's Health Protection Act

Women's Health Protection Act
source
Name	Women's Health Protection Act
Congress	117th United States Congress
Title	To protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
Introducedin	Senate
Introducedby	Richard Blumenthal
Introduceddate	June 8, 2021
Committees	Senate Judiciary
Related	Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

Women's Health Protection Act is a proposed federal statute in the United States designed to establish a statutory right for healthcare providers to perform abortions and for patients to receive them, preempting many state-level restrictions. The legislation was first introduced in the 113th United States Congress and has been reintroduced in subsequent sessions, gaining prominence following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It aims to codify the protections once guaranteed under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey into federal law, creating a national standard for abortion access.

Background and legislative history

The impetus for the legislation grew from increasing state-level restrictions on abortion access in the early 21st century, such as those enacted in Texas and Mississippi. Following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, congressional Democrats, led by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Tammy Baldwin and Representatives Judy Chu and Lois Frankel, prioritized the bill. Its legislative history is tied directly to the court's composition and cases like Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and June Medical Services v. Russo. The decisive shift occurred after the Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned regulatory authority to states, prompting urgent calls for a federal legislative response from the Biden Administration and organizations like Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Provisions of the act

The core provisions seek to invalidate state laws that impose medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion providers, often termed Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. It would prohibit bans on abortion prior to fetal viability, as well as specific restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, and requirements that only physicians can perform the procedure. The act also aims to block laws that single out abortion facilities for stringent architectural standards or hospital admitting privilege rules, similar to those challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. It contains protections against laws that prohibit abortion based on a patient's reasons or that seek to limit medication abortion, as regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Legislative attempts and votes

The bill was first introduced in the 113th United States Congress but saw its first major floor votes in the 117th United States Congress. On February 28, 2022, the House passed the act largely along party lines, with support from the Democratic Party and opposition from the Republican Party. In the United States Senate, a vote on May 11, 2022, failed to overcome a filibuster, with Senators Joe Manchin and Bob Casey Jr. joining all Republicans in opposition. A subsequent vote in the Senate following the Dobbs decision also failed, highlighting the pivotal role of the Senate's cloture rule and the party-line divide.

Support and opposition

Support for the act is led by the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, and major advocacy groups including NARAL Pro-Choice America, EMILY's List, and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Key supporters argue it is necessary to create a uniform national standard and protect healthcare access, particularly for people in states with restrictive laws like those passed in Alabama and Georgia. Opposition is organized by groups such as the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Family Research Council, who argue it exceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause and invalidates state-level regulations supported by voters. Many opponents cite the potential override of laws like the Hyde Amendment.

Legal and political impact

While not enacted, the proposal has significantly influenced the national debate on abortion rights and the scope of congressional power post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It represents a central legislative goal for the Democratic Party and a rallying point for activists in organizations like the National Organization for Women. Its future is tied to the composition of Congress, potential changes to the filibuster rule, and the outcome of elections in key states like Pennsylvania and Arizona. The act also interacts with other federal efforts, such as the proposed Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act, and ongoing litigation by the Department of Justice against states like Idaho under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Category:Proposed federal legislation of the United States Category:Abortion in the United States