House GOP Revives Bill to Block Late-Term Abortions, Armed with New Preemie Viability Data

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


On the heels of new research that revealed more infants born at 22 weeks are able to survive than was previously thought, Republican leaders in the U.S House of Representatives have dusted off a late-term abortion bill for a vote, although chances of it becoming law seem distant.

The bill, which bans abortions after 20 weeks, was put on legislative purgatory in January over provisions that some lawmakers feared would force rape victims to report crimes. But the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” is now being reintroduced with tweaked language that would require abortion seekers to complete an informed consent form signed by a physician performing the procedure and a witness. It removes the rape reporting requirement that was part of the earlier version of this bill.

“Knowing that premature babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks into fetal development, there is no legitimate reason to oppose this bill,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Texas), a sponsor of the bill, said in a press release, referring to findings published May 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The new study examined the survival rates of almost 5,000 babies born between 22 and 27 weeks (babies are typically considered viable at 24 weeks). It found that a small number of the infants born at 22 weeks can survive with medical treatment, though many of them had long-term impairment. No such infants survived without treatment. Among 78 treated infants born at 22 weeks of age, 18 survived. Only seven of those children did not have severe or moderate impairments.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The medical findings immediately set off concerns that they could influence abortion policy even before the House action was announced. “I think if you shift viability even two weeks you will have a lot more people facing restrictions on ending pregnancy,” says Arthur Caplan, professor of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center and a Scientific American Advisory Board member. “My own worry about it is this: I know of fetuses that survive at 22 weeks but with a lot of medical problems and disability. For me, survival isn’t the only issue – it’s about quality of life.”

To date, fourteen states have laws on 20 week abortion bans, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The laws are in effect in 10 states. West Virginia has a law that will go into effect next month after the state’s legislature overrode the Governor’s veto. In three more states--Arizona, Georgia and Idaho--the laws have been blocked from enforcement due to court action.  For instance, Arizona’s bill, which would have blocked abortions at 18 weeks post-fertilization (20 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period) was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court early last year.

The current House bill is not expected to gain passage in the Senate.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe