Rep. Lanoue Opposes Controversial Abortion Bill

On Tuesday night, the House of Representatives voted and passed H.B. No. 5414:An Act Concerning the Provision of Protections for Persons Receiving and Providing Reproductive Health Care Services in the State and Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in the State, a bill which I strongly opposed.

This legislation enables abortion providers to travel across state lines to perform abortions and have no repercussions if they violate another state’s laws. Even when a crime occurs under that state’s laws, Connecticut courts would block any attempt for legal action against the provider, as long as it is legal under Connecticut Law.  One of the most troubling examples is when an abortion is performed on a minor girl in that state without prior parental consent even when that state’s law requires it. Currently, 37 states across the country, including neighboring Massachusetts and Rhode Island, require parental consent. However, because no parental consent is required under Connecticut law, a Connecticut judge would be precluded from granting another state’s request for the abortionist to appear before their grand jury or any other criminal justice proceeding. Under this legislation, not only does Connecticut Law trespass on the rights of parents in this state but will attempt to spread these errors throughout the country.

The bill also expands those who are legally able to perform abortions, to now include APRN’s, physician’s assistants, and nurse-midwives. Again, under the language written in this bill – if an APRN, physician’s assistant or a nurse-midwife performed an abortion in another state where it was against the law for them to do so, there would be no legal action that could be taken in Connecticut against that person. This includes aspiration or suction abortions, where the unborn child is vacuumed or sucked out of the mother’s uterus.

Contained in the bill is language addressing the “viability” of the baby.  With that said, I had some questions as to who and how is the standard of “viability” is determined?  When I asked the proponent of the bill at what point can viability itself be defined? Is viability reached when there is a heartbeat? Or when the unborn child could feel pain? How about when the baby’s hands, feet, head, and neck are formed?  No answers could be provided to me. Also, the legislation states abortions can be performed beyond “viability” when it is performed to preserve the “health” of the mother. What constitutes the health of the mother? What are the parameters of the health of the mother? Can a headache, anxiety, or financial stress be defined as the health of the mother? No answers were supplied to these questions.

As someone who supports the protection of life from the time of conception to natural death, there was no way I could in clear moral conscience support this legislation that will harbor those who illegally preform out of state abortions or expand the types of providers that will be able to take a life of an innocent unborn child.