Zink elected to have the procedure because something terrible happened during a wanted pregnancy. This is hardly an uncommon scenario, yet H.R. 3803 makes no exceptions for fetal anomalies.As Rachel Maddow has noted, Republican legislators have used success in the polls that appears to be largely motivated by economic factors to ratchet up the effort against women's rights.
A recall election is under way because of moves that were deemed too much involving unions and such, but at least that is economic in nature (if a bridge too far). Something similar can be seen in respect to the PPACA, which some forces sees as too intrusive and having negative economic effects. Dim or not, there is a logic of legislators going after that. But, with this stuff comes conservative social efforts of this type. Something for libertarians who latch on to people like Ron Paul.
The title legislation has received some coverage, a particular issue being that it targets "D.C." without the committee chairman allowing its delegate to testify. The one Democratic witness being the lady cited above, who had a late abortion because of fetal abnormality, which is not covered by the exception. In fact, like the so-called "partial abortion" law, there is not even a "health" exception here. The USSC in effect took the Congress' word that there didn't need to be one (at least, in a facial challenge), but that was merely for a specific procedure. This involves abortions overall and it is a blatant violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, even without the fact there is no "at best dubious fetal pain" exception (even if cited as "facts" in the whereas section) to the viability rule.
To clarify, the idea here is that by twenty weeks (though the belief is much earlier), fetuses feel pain and that this justifies banning abortion at that point. As noted by the lead link, the medical science here is at best strongly disputed. This has to be balanced with a total ban on abortion, even when a woman's health is at stake or a severely deformed fetus who would die after a few hours once born is involved. These wedge bills tend to address such tragic situations, over 90% of abortions occurring in the first trimester, a fraction of a percent by this point. Furthermore, we are not just talking about use of some sort of anesthesia (if possible) to address the alleged fetal pain. And, again, Casey allows abortion until viability, even though even in the early 1990s, there were some who thought embryos and fetuses showed some reception to pain.
The bill (like some recent state efforts) doesn't draw the line at viability, however, but twenty weeks. This is one of those "how far will Kennedy go" laws. The federal "partial birth abortion" law cited, however, was national in scope. This one focuses on one area because Congress has specific broad power (putting aside principles of local government) over the district though it also has specific power in other areas, including federal territories (e.g., let's say Guam wants to pass a law of this nature; Congress could let them have a local option). It is, shall we say a bit dick-ish, to not even let the area's delegate to testify, given it is common practice to let members of Congress do so.
Taking away local options here (see also, use of funds for abortion) is bad enough without adding insult to injury. What is the problem with giving her a say? This sort of thing only increases the cries for D.C. statehood, which would be in foolhardy (it's not a "state" ... it's a small district area) or giving the D.C. delegate a vote in Congress (a valid idea but the legit way to do it is via amendment). D.C. only received limited rights via the 23rd Amendment the first time around in particular for racial reasons; now, there is a particular partisan flavor to Republican actions here. As shown by a proposal supported by Hatch to give D.C. a voting delegate in return for another for Utah or some such, there is room for compromise here.
No principle, including federalism or localism, is going to be applied completely. There is always going to be exceptions and it is not unprincipled to make an exception if you honestly believe that unborn "children" are at stake here. The argument is weaker here, since the Congress has "police power" that extends further than this one area. Nonetheless, there is some limits even here, and not letting Eleanor Holmes Norton testify is partisan hardball that belittles what should be a matter of principle.
The principle is wrong here on the merits too.