Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Gage Skidmore / Planned Parenthood (Composite)

Abortion

Republicans Block Democrat Bill Designed to Allow Abortion Access across State Lines

“Does that child in the womb have the right to travel in the future? Do they get to live?”

Republicans, including Senator James Lankford, blocked a Democrat request to unanimously pass a bill designed to protect abortion access across state lines.

The “Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2022” was introduced by Democrat Senators Patty Murray of Washington, and Catherine Cortez Masto, of Nevada. The bill comes after Gershon Fuentes, 27, was arrested in a widely publicised case, where his 10-year-old victim travelled across state lines from Ohio to Indiana to seek an abortion.

“Restricting women’s right to travel across state lines is truly radical—and un-American,” said Murray. “Our bill would protect Americans’ constitutional right to travel across state lines to get a lawful abortion—and protect the providers who care for them. Even as Republicans go to the ends of the Earth to strip away our constitutional rights, Democrats are fighting back to protect them.”

The bill would also ensure that any clauses within state laws that regulate travelling for an abortion would be invalidated, and give the US attorney the power to take any civil actions against states that tried to enact such legislation. Individuals or entities impacted by state legislation would also be able to sue.

However, Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, blocked a request on Thursday to pass the bill via unanimous approval in the Senate. “Does that child in the womb have the right to travel in the future?” Lankford asked. “Do they get to live? There’s a child in this conversation as well.”

Lankford also argued that the need for such federal legislation wasn’t even an issue, claiming that no state had yet banned travelling across state lines for an abortion. He was backed up by Senator Roger Marshall, who called it a “a bill that’s in search of a problem.”

Related  Trump Promises He Will Be ‘Hunting Down Chinese Spies’ if Reelected in 2024

“I don’t see any reason or any serious people out there saying that they want to arrest women for having an abortion for crossing state lines,” Marshall argued. Senator Steve Daines of Montana also pointed out that the bill could open the door for “abortion tourism,” and would “protect the greed of work corporations,” who have promised to fund such travel for their employees.

While it is true no state legislatures are currently discussing the issue, conservative groups, including the Thomas More Society, are attempting to draft model legislation that would ban interstate travel for the purposes of abortion, allowing people to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state where abortion is banned to travel to get one.

Cortez Masto responded to her Republican colleagues, by saying that all the legislation says is “respect my state,” adding that Nevada is a “choice” state. “If women want to travel to my state to seek services and providers want to provide those services, and employers want to help women travel, let the states travel.”

Following the moves in the Senate, Joe Biden tweeted a reminder that the current administration would “use executive action to protect a woman’s right to travel across state borders to get the care she needs,” highlighting that Republicans had blocked the legislation. The House is set to vote on its own version of the abortion travel ban on Friday.

Jack Hadfield
Written By

Jack Hadfield is the Associate Editor at Valiant News. An investigative reporter from the UK, and the director and presenter of "Destination Dover: Migrants in the Channel, his work has appeared in such sites as Breitbart and The Political Insider. You can follow him on Gab @JH, on Telegram @JackHadders, or see his other social media by visiting jackhadfield.co.uk.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    July 15, 2022 at 6:15 am

    The problem with returning this concern over to State Legislatures and Legislators, is that the Constitutional Premise of EGALITARIAN NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL, is– BY COMPARTMENTALIZED DEFAULT!– nearly impossible to uphold! And so, virtually ENTRENCHING A DIVIDED NATION OVER A CONCERN, THAT/ WHICH WILL FOSTER CONTINUED THREATS TO NATIONAL UNITY AND HARMONY– PITTING STATE INTERESTS AGAINST STATE INTERESTS!… AND GIVING DEFERENCE TO SOME, WHO HOLD THAT AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION IS GOVERNED BY THE, “FEDERALIST PAPERS”!
    .
    ____________________
    .
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Romans Chapter 13: 1 and 2, we read the following:…
    .
    1) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [NIV]
    .
    To the matter… for TRUE Christians, it is clear that we are to be subject to that which is in authority. But, it’s also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country– at least!– is a country’s God-allowed respective national constitution!… and which– invariably!– contains Rights and Freedoms (e.g., Freedom of Expression, Press Freedom, Life, Security of the Person and NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL… BUT, ETC.!). And to resist such… in keeping with Romans C. 13: vs. 1 and 2!… IS TO RESIST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GRANTED TO A COUNTRY’S PEOPLE THROUGH GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY; AND THEREBY, TO RESIST GOD AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT! And in addition to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of our national constitutions, is the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… the signatories to which, are available for all too see.
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Mark Chapter 3: 23 to 27, we read the following:…
    .
    23) So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24) If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25) If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26) And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27) In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house…” [NIV]
    .
    Reader… and if I may!… let me offer up juxtaposed analogous “relevant arguments” and translations of Christ’s words conveyed in Mark 3…
    .
    1) How can Constitutional Paramountcy drive out Constitutional Paramountcy? 2) If a Constitution’s words be RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE in the context of it’s̲ entirety, that Constitution can’t stand. 3) If a Government is divided against itself, that Government can’t stand. 4) If a President opposes one’s self and is divided, such a soul can’t stand; that soul’s end has come. 5) In truth, no one can defeat a strong philosophy’s premise without first binding it’s̲ premise. Then one can defeat the strong philosophy’s premise.
    .
    Therefore, in keeping with a P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲I̲F̲I̲C̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲ of a premise of E̲G̲A̲L̲I̲T̲A̲R̲I̲A̲N̲ N̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ ̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲ ̲P̲R̲O̲T̲E̲C̲T̲I̲O̲N̲S̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲ ̲B̲E̲N̲E̲F̲I̲T̲S̲ ̲B̲E̲F̲O̲R̲E̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲U̲N̲D̲E̲R̲ ̲T̲H̲E̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲ ̲F̲O̲R̲ ̲A̲L̲L̲, A̲N̲D̲ ̲C̲O̲N̲S̲T̲I̲T̲U̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ N̲O̲N̲-R̲E̲L̲A̲T̲I̲V̲E̲, ̲D̲E̲F̲I̲N̲I̲T̲I̲V̲E̲, ̲C̲O̲N̲S̲I̲S̲T̲E̲N̲T̲, ̲N̲O̲N̲-S̲E̲L̲F̲-C̲O̲N̲T̲R̲A̲D̲I̲C̲T̲O̲R̲Y̲ A̲N̲D̲ ̲I̲N̲T̲E̲R̲O̲P̲E̲R̲A̲B̲L̲E̲ E̲X̲P̲R̲E̲S̲S̲I̲O̲N̲, A CONSTITUTION THAT CAN’T AVER SUCH A PREMISE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF IT’S̲ MANDATE, IS A CONSTITUTION THAT’S FOUNDED UPON A “PREMISE” OF NON-EGALITARIAN NON-NATIONAL NON-EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND NON-EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE EXPRESSION… THUS, IF STATE-WIDE INTERPRETATIONS D̲E̲L̲I̲M̲I̲T̲ THE AFOREMENTIONED P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲I̲F̲I̲C̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ PREMISE– AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, IN FACT, SUPPORTS SUCH INTERPRETATIONS AND DELIMITATION– THEN THE CONSTITUTION IS BASED UPON A PREMISE OF NON-EGALITARIAN NON-NATIONAL NON-EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND NON-EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE EXPRESSION, AND THE P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲I̲F̲I̲C̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ PREMISE CAN’T BE REALIZED; AND SO AND THUS, OUR CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORITY (GOD’S AUTHORITY!) WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO BEING SOMEONE’S RUSEFUL (OR INADVERTENT) DEFERENCE TO LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE DIVISIONS!
    .
    Do you understand me reader? Either the American Constitution– GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY!– is based upon the aforementioned P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲I̲F̲I̲C̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ premise, or it’s founded upon “someone’s” RUSEFUL– or “INADVERTENT”!– HANDICAP! Nevertheless, if INADVERTENT, one must ask: How could God I̲N̲A̲D̲V̲E̲R̲T̲E̲N̲T̲L̲Y̲ handicap his own law?
    .
    Incidentally…
    .
    T̲H̲E̲ ̲F̲E̲D̲E̲R̲A̲L̲I̲S̲T̲ ̲P̲A̲P̲E̲R̲S̲ ̲A̲R̲E̲ ̲N̲O̲T̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲!… they are ESSAYS expressing OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional framework for the patrons of America, and how this framework could be interpreted (albeit, ESSAY OPINIONS from contributors to this framework). Had all or part of these papers been added as a LEGAL PREAMBLE to the proposed U.S. Constitution, then there’d be no question as to their legitimacy as an OFFICIAL GUIDE re Constitutional interpretation and re the scope of each and every provision to be included in the proposed document… but, these were not included (nor a distilled version of same), because there was an unspoken fear that to do so, would compel entrenched opposition to this, that and the other before the document could be ratified– and because, a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE is no longer a matter of public debate, but a course of legislated action that must either win, or fail. And so, to move the debate into the public arena… and away from the prospect of having the document socially shredded by amassed dissent!… is to invite proactive discourse on ESSAY OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional proposal, while– all the while– document designers were “feeling the pulses” of “America’s patients” to gauge whether their “designer bedside manners” were either an assist to the document’s ratification, or but blunders that/ which needed further “treatment” before passage could be effected. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate– but necessary– tact(ic) move… but, the drawback, was that the courts would be without an OFFICIAL GUIDE with which to aver DEFINITIVE yeas or nays re issues of Constitutional interpretation and provisional scope… and must either “pull rabbits out of hats”, or give deference to the “Federalist Papers”. And that, became an ongoing Judicial dilemma…
    .
    “The amount of deference that should be given to The Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that ‘the OPINIONS expressed by the authors of that work have been justly SUPPOSED to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them WHICH EXCEEDS THEIR MERIT; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a RIGHT TO JUDGE of their correctness must be retained.’ In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, James Madison stated of the Constitution that ‘the LEGITIMATE MEANING of the Instrument must be derived from THE TEXT ITSELF; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must BE NOT IN THE OPINIONS OR INTENTIONS OF THE BODY WHICH PLANNED & PROPOSED THE CONSTITUTION, but in the sense ATTACHED TO IT by the people in their respective State Conventions where it RECD. ALL THE AUTHORITY which it possesses.'” – The Federalist Papers, Wikipedia (see, Judicial use) (Note: the bold lettering is my emphasis.)
    .
    Nevertheless!… and on a positive note!… now that the American Constitution is in place, all that Americans need do (through their Representatives!) is to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that/ which would entrench all or part of a distilled rendition of the Federalist Papers in a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE. Or, draft a Formal Legal Preamble that declares: THE U.S. CONSTITUTION– AND REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS– IS FOUNDED UPON A P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲I̲F̲I̲C̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ premise of E̲G̲A̲L̲I̲T̲A̲R̲I̲A̲N̲ N̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲A̲L̲ ̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲ ̲P̲R̲O̲T̲E̲C̲T̲I̲O̲N̲S̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲E̲Q̲U̲A̲L̲ ̲B̲E̲N̲E̲F̲I̲T̲S̲ ̲B̲E̲F̲O̲R̲E̲ ̲A̲N̲D̲ ̲U̲N̲D̲E̲R̲ ̲T̲H̲E̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲ ̲F̲O̲R̲ ̲A̲L̲L̲, A̲N̲D̲ N̲O̲N̲-R̲E̲L̲A̲T̲I̲V̲E̲, ̲D̲E̲F̲I̲N̲I̲T̲I̲V̲E̲, ̲C̲O̲N̲S̲I̲S̲T̲E̲N̲T̲, ̲N̲O̲N̲-S̲E̲L̲F̲-C̲O̲N̲T̲R̲A̲D̲I̲C̲T̲O̲R̲Y̲ A̲N̲D̲ ̲I̲N̲T̲E̲R̲O̲P̲E̲R̲A̲B̲L̲E̲ E̲X̲P̲R̲E̲S̲S̲I̲O̲N̲!
    .
    To conclude, despite the DAILY CITED NOTION of the Separation of Church and State (i.e., the Establishment Clause and/ or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, enumerated within the Constitution… though, implied– and as paraphrased– from the written exchanges between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association), most of us acquainted with the “textual evolution/ contextual evolution” of this document are familiar with yet other opinions of the founding dads that/ which aver a God-centric basis for the document’s manifest existence– and yea, CITE BIBLI̲C̲ PROPHECY. And so, if the Constitutional “Separation of Church and State” was true, then what can we make of– must we make of!– Romans, C. 13: vs. 1-3, and the Authority expressed therein? How can GOD’S CHURCH be SEPARATE, but yet the State’s A̲U̲T̲H̲O̲R̲I̲T̲Y̲?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending on Valiant News:

Entertainment

Non-binary singer Sam Smith and trans artist Kim Petras performed a rendition of their song "Unholy."

Politics

While New Hampshire would be the second primary after South Carolina, the Iowa caucuses would not be in the early window at all.

Economy

Buttigied claimed that there have been "so many accomplishments under this administration that it is difficult to list them in a distilled way."

Election Integrity

Democrats in Virginia want billionaires to spend their fortune on election systems. Why ever could that be?