Title: The Rape, Incest, and Life Protection Act (RILPA)
Section 1: Purpose
This bill aims to ensure uniform access to abortion services across all states in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk. It addresses disparities arising from the overturning of Roe v. Wade, establishing exceptions that states must adhere to.
Section 2: Definitions
Rape Exception: Abortion services must be made available in all states to individuals who are victims of rape, with a requirement that cases be documented by a law enforcement report, medical professional report, or other recognized documentation.
Incest Exception: Abortion services must be provided to victims of incest with documentation, similar to the Rape Exception.
Life of the Mother Exception: In situations where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother, as determined by a certified medical professional, abortion services must be available.
Section 3: Uniform State Requirement
State Compliance: All states must provide access to abortion services for cases meeting the conditions of Section 2. No state may restrict or prohibit abortions in these circumstances.
Documentation Requirement: To access services under these exceptions, documentation must be provided as described in Section 2. States may not add additional barriers beyond these requirements.
Section 4: Severability
If any provision of this act is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5: Effective Date
This act shall take effect immediately upon passage.
I agree, except we should support a 15 week limit to the rape/incest exception.
In addition, there are other exceptions that should be added. I have binge-researched all the scenarios that women and OB-GYN’s are complaining about that aren’t covered or are gray areas that they would like covered.
Also, due to widespread accusations that exceptions are too vague or confusing, the exceptions must be drafted very clearly and specifically. A federal bill must be bullet-proof to withstand all scrutiny.
Finally, there needs to be teeth in this bill, enforcement against medical providers who refuse to provide timely, lifesaving abortions/miscarriage care.
(I see now that you just now deleted your proposal. Would you please review my proposal, too?)
I didn’t go as in-depth initially since it was my first post, but I noticed a gap when searching for Abortion Exceptions and didn’t see one that addressed this specifically, so I created mine. After reading through yours, I see that some religious groups argue against abortion because they believe life begins at conception. Our goal is to make this a bipartisan effort, ensuring that cases of rape, incest, and situations where the mother’s life is at risk are addressed in a way that represents viewpoints from both sides. If abortion is allowed universally, there’s concern that the system could be abused, with people seeking the procedure for financial benefits through insurance claims. This leaves no accountability for the act of terminating a pregnancy.
Yes. And just to be clear. Nothing about my proposal authorizes “universal” abortion. It doesn’t change the gestational time limits placed by each states. It mainly clears up the allowable exceptions, and explains them using very specific terms so that they won’t get abused, and offers accountability against doctors who refuse to offer legal, lifesaving abortions (not elective).
Also, as of right now, there is no “accountability” for terminating an elective abortion. Doing nothing will only ensure that the lack of accountability continues.
I read your proposal as aiming to legalize abortion across all states, similar to what Roe v. Wade intended. My bill, however, focuses specifically on the exceptions—cases like those highlighted by Harris and Walz. It ensures that no medical professional in any hospital would deny care in situations involving rape, incest, or risks to the mother’s life. We could address the broader issue of making abortions legal with term limits in a separate bill, but that’s likely where the disagreements between Republicans and Democrats will arise.
I do however agree with the 15 week limit on cases of Rape and Incest, which is why my bill was broad, so it can be talked about and revised before landing on the congress floor.
My proposal does not legalize elective abortion or demand an increase in gestational limits. It honors Trump’s “state’s rights” campaign promise.
It’s a Federal Exception Bill very closely aligned with yours.
But it goes further and offers small pro-life concessions, such as restricting the use of feticide against viable babies, mandating fetal pain relief/fetal anesthesia for second trimester abortions, and mandating that viable babies born alive must be actively treated. This will significantly reduce the incidence of late term elective abortions and rescue all prematurely born/aborted babies born alive.
I do not support, nor do I advocate for a right to elective abortion at any stage.
Hey, also, I just now edited the wording to try to make my above intentions more clear. Can I get your feedback. Does it seem more clear now?
I added the following sentence to the first paragraph: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH STATES’ EXISTING GESTATIONAL LIMITS TO ELECTIVE ABORTION.
I also added the words “medically necessary” preceding “maternal healthcare” multiple times in the second paragraph, this is what it says now:
· Allows reasonable fines against medical providers who knowingly and unnecessarily delay or refuse to provide a legal, life-saving abortion or miscarriage care treatment, or sending the patient away to another state against the patient’s location preference, for a medically necessary maternal healthcare service that the provider and/or facility had the capacity to provide safely and timely. Doctors who refuse to provide medically necessary maternal healthcare, must document & explain that decision to the patient in writing. Allows fines against hospitals and medical institutions who advise their employees and contracted medical professionals to knowingly and unnecessarily delay or refuse medically necessary maternal healthcare services, or turn their maternal patients to other locations or states, against the patient’s location preference, for potentially urgent or medically necessary maternal health services, miscarriage care or a legal, life-saving abortion, even in times that the facility had the capacity to provide it safely and timely. Allows fines against medical providers who violate the maternal patient’s informed consent prior to a procedure. Fund medical malpractice lawsuits against medical providers for women who were harmed by a medical provider’s unnecessary refusal or delays to provide medically necessary maternal care, as explained above.
Everything in your proposal is effective, except for the second paragraph:
My legislative ideas (following this introductory message) reflect my deep research and insight on the matter. It would remove needless barriers to quality maternal healthcare, confront the negative perception of pro-life laws, and offer small pro-life concessions, WITHOUT BANNING ABORTIONS AT ALL. If you were to announce support for these positions, you would amaze everyone from all sides of this issue and clench the popular vote.
This is where I encountered pushback regarding the phrase “without banning abortions at all.” While I support each state’s right to set their own limits and abortion laws, I believe there should be exceptions in every state to address situations where individuals have no choice—such as cases involving the health of the mother, rape, or incest. Even in Texas, where abortion is currently illegal, I believe that these all the exceptions are necessary, even within the more conservative regions like the Bible Belt.
The wording in that second paragraph makes it seem like your position supports the general legality of abortions, which comes across as vague. It might be clearer to rephrase it to emphasize “support for legal abortions through exceptions.”
So, yes, my pushback was specifically regarding that sentence, which is why I haven’t cast my vote on your bill yet and felt the need to have this discussion.
I have no intention to express “support for legal abortions.”
The idea is strictly to allow federal exceptions in limited cases in a way that is consistent with Trump’s adamant “states only” stance on elective abortion.
I understand; just adjust the way you phrased “WITHOUT BANNING ABORTIONS AT ALL.” That is the only part of your Bill that seems inconsistent with your view on this topic.
It’s important to keep that concept clear, not just to readers, but ESPECIALLY to Trump. If he thinks this bans abortion, he will instantly lose interest. His approach to elective abortion is “states rights.”
This bill does NOT authorize or legalize elective abortion. It does NOT interfere with states’ desired gestational limits. And it does not ban abortion. It does not prevent any state from allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy at any time and therefore is not an abortion ban.
This begs the question: Do you believe that the government should be able to compel or attempt to compel a doctor to act against his conscience and do an abortion if the doctor is adamantly opposed to abortion?
Another question: What about a doctor who does not know how to do an abortion and what about a doctor that does not even want to know how to do an abortion?
I strenuously disagree with any exceptions for rape or incest. Unfortunate for the female who is impregnated against her will but the unborn baby that is conceived under the circumstances of rape or incest is still an unborn baby deserving no less protection than those conceived any other way.
I do believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion if continuing the pregnancy would endanger her life or result in some sort of serious bodily injury or lasting harm. However the opinion of one doctor should not be sufficient; a second and third opinion confirming the danger to life or limb of the mother should be required and no doctor who conscientiously objects to doing abortions should be compelled to act against his or her conscience under any circumstances whatsoever.
Unfortunately, being a doctor is still considered a job, which means you may face aspects of it that you find uncomfortable. You might feel uneasy about performing certain procedures that go against your conscience or religious beliefs. However, your personal opinions on the matter should not be the determining factor in decisions regarding a pregnancy, as it is ultimately the woman who bears the responsibility of carrying it, not the doctor.
Moreover, you can’t selectively pick and choose what procedures you will or won’t perform in the role of a doctor, unless it was specifically outlined that you wouldn’t handle that particular field when you were hired by the hospital.
I’m not sure how it is in other states, but I believe a conscience exemption exists for elective abortions, but there is no conscience exemption for emergency situations. As for level of experience, I’m not the expert but the hospital is responsible for hiring experienced professionals. Obviously you can’t do something you aren’t trained to do.
I really appreciate you taking the time to pepare such a detailed proposal. I would like to address a point that was recently brought to my attention by my state offical is the term “certified medical professional”… This term is too broad and doesn’t actually indicate a doctor. This opens a legal loophole. It opens doors for unqualified yet “certified” in the medical field the green light to intervene/advise etc, and offer misinformation which could then pu both mother and baby and risk.
I also am Pro-life and find myself in a quandry between my beliefs and a feasible compromise. I understand that there can be circumstances that could go beyond the current cut off dates in certain states. Personally, I think 12 weeks not 15 is a reasonable timeframe to get the proper care. I understand that there can be instances that may fall in a gray area and should be addressed on a case to case basis. Babies should be protected at all costs. Maternal care as well as all options to save baby should always be available. I know this is not happening and abortions are given so freely. Abortion as birth control is disgusting and it’s happening. People who dont see or accept that I have no words for.
For the most part I agree with all your points in this proposal and thank you for taking your time to prepare such an informational piece. I wish you luck.
