Democrats’ Bill to Codify ‘Roe’ and Abortion Omits the Word ‘Woman’

breitbart ^ | 9 May 2022 | JOEL B. POLLAK

[MarvinStinson]

Democrats are defending Roe v. Wade as the foundation of women’s rights, but their bill to codify Roe into law lacks the word “woman,” and only mentions the word “women” in the title.

The 2021 bill is, in many ways, the bare, exposed id of today’s Democratic Party. It is filled with the kind of language that turns off voters in the vast middle of the electorate — Democrats, Republicans, and independents. And that is why, now that the Supreme Court leak has pushed abortion to the front of the political debate, and with midterm elections on the way, Democrats have removed all that language from the 2021 version of the bill.

That stuff about Reproductive Justice? It’s gone. About BIPOC? It’s gone, too. Nonbinary people? Gone. White supremacy? Nowhere to be found. Now that Democrats know the public will be watching, thanks to the Supreme Court leak, they don’t want people to see what they really think about abortion.

The terms “woman” and “women” are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services.

In addition, the bill included other radical provisions on “reproductive justice,” calling it a fight against “white supremacy.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has scheduled a vote on the bill for later this week.

[MarvinStinson]

One notable aspect of the 2021 bill has made it into the 2022 bill. Even though it is known as the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” the title is the only place in the entire 2022 bill where the word “women” or “woman” appears. Instead, the 2022 bill is designed to cover any “person” who is pregnant. It describes its purpose as protecting “a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy,” and it would strike down any effort to “interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy [or] to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”

[cotton1706]

Well, to be fair, they’re not biologists. /sarc

[yldstrk]

The bill will be unconstitutional, you can’t give someone the option to kill someone else when the constitution says there is a right to life.

[rightwingcrazy]

...only mentions the word “women” in the title.

Because the title is all that almost anyone will read. Removing “women” from the title would have made the bill confusing, annoying and absurd to most who read it, a subject of ridicule.

[tomkat]

.. a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy

Anyone happen to recall seeing that anywhere in our Constitution?

[cranked]

Apparently, no Leftist biologist to be found to render a definition...../s

[Pete Dovgan]

How is it Constitutional for the Federal Government, to enact laws that block states rights to regulate within their borders and has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

GIANT waste of legislative effort.

These Clowns need to begin to set up an Amendment process, which Congress can present to the states for Ratification.

[COBOL2Java]

The bill will be unconstitutional, you can’t give someone the option to kill someone else when the constitution says there is a right to life.

Now, now, another briefcase full of cash to Roberts, and he'll make sure any Supreme Court review is treated in line with Soros' wishes.

[Bernard]

The 2021 bill is, in many ways, the bare, exposed id of today’s Democratic Party

One step away from the id monster in the movie "Forbidden Planet". They should remember how that turned out.

[Boogieman]

Pointless posturing. If Roe is overturned they’ll need an amendment to undue that and they know it.

[RWGinger]

Confusing
First says the term Women only appears in title then later says the terms are used in the bill to reflect the identity of the majority etc etc.
So are the terms woman or women in the bill or not?

[FlingWingFlyer]

Probably because women do not murder their babies. Feminazis do.

[hanamizu]

How is it Constitutional for the Federal Government, to enact laws that block states rights to regulate within their borders and has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

---

Yes where in the ‘enumerated powers’ given to the Federal Government in Article 1 Section 8 does Congress get to regulate abortion?

(I realize that I’m being quaint in thinking that the dems in Congress feel restrained by the Constitution.)

[USCG SimTech]

Does that mean that the male sperm provider that caused the accidental pregnancy’s can sue to force the abortion upon the female?

[JimRed]

Since they don’t know what a woman IS...

[MissNomer]

Yes, a very badly written article. But, once you figure out what they’re trying to say, it’s interesting.