An anti-abortion watchdog warned that Congresswoman Judy Chu's "Women's Health Protection Act" is deceptively named for it will kill all pro-life laws if passed and enacted.
CBN News said Washington D.C.-based research institute Heritage Foundation warned on the consequences of the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) once it is approved by Congress. The Heritage Foundation claims that the bill intends to not only codify Roe v. Wade, it will also end any existing and upcoming laws enacted by states and the national government to protect life.
The Heritage Foundation released a report on Monday entitled, "The Truth About The So-Called Women's Health Protection Act: A Radical Proposal To Mandate Unfettered Abortion Access In Federal Law", that highlighted the said bill's danger not only to the unborn but also to women and to taxpayers.
"This far-reaching proposal would mandate an abortion regime far more radical that the status quo by endangering long-standing and future state and federal laws that protect unborn children's lives, women's health and safety, and medical providers' consciences and religious liberty and that also protect taxpayers from being forced to fund the abortion industry," the Heritage Foundation said in the report.
Accordingly, there are three "Key Takeaways" that should be given attention regarding the proposed bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cited early this month to threaten against the implementation of the Texas Heartbeat Act. These are:
- "Pro-abortion advocates want Congress to enact a bill to end broadly supported existing and future federal and state pro-life policy."
- "This far-reaching bill endangers unborn lives, women's health and safety, and medical providers' fundamental liberties while forcing taxpayers to fund abortion."
- "Congress instead should pursue policies rooted in the principle that life is our most basic human freedom and should be protected in public policy."
The WHPA was first introduced in 2013 and reintroduced by the Democrats in June to give health care professionals the leeway of providing abortions such that national laws are circumvented since it removes all requirements and limitations on the procedure.
Democrats were criticized for the bill for it showed their priority is for tax-funded abortions. Similarly, Pelosi was condemned by pro-life groups including that of staunch pro-lifer Lila Rose's Live Action for using the bill to prevent the Texas Heartbeat Act from being replicated in other states.
One of the WHPA's co-sponsor, Texas Representative Veronica Escobar, was part of the 60 Catholic Democrats who sent a letter to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June during the height of the controversy on the reception of Holy Communion. The 60 Catholic Democrats condemned the American bishops for allegedly weaponizing the Eucharist.
Heritage Foundation DeVos Center Policy Analyst Melanie Israel explained that the WHPA would endanger the "1,300 life-affirming policies" enacted by states since 1973 to protect the unborn, women's health, and the religious freedom of medical professionals and providers, as well as, the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
"The bill would prevent state protections for children from abortion based on their sex, race, or diagnosis of a genetic abnormality such as Down Syndrome-policies that, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, 'promote a State's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics'," Israel pointed out.
"It further threatens Americans' fundamental First Amendment rights by explicitly stating that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 will not provide recourse if a policy otherwise runs afoul of the WHPA,"she stressed.
Israel suggested that Congress should enact laws that protect innocent life instead of taking "away the American people's ability to have a say in pro-life policymaking."