The Hill News

Proponents of states rights in the District of Columbia are challenging proposed legislation banning late-term abortions in the area, claiming “disparate” treatment.
 
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) announced last week he plans to introduce The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill, slated for introduction Monday evening, would prohibit abortions past the 20-week gestation period solely in the District.
 
“The bill requires abortionists to determine and report the gestational age of each unborn child, to insure that a pain-capable child is not aborted,” Franks wrote in a Dear Colleague memo circulated to Congressional colleagues last week.
 
Describing the effort as “humanitarian and compassionate,” Franks told The Hill Monday that the proposed legislation was necessary because late-term abortionists unable to practice elsewhere were coming to the District.
 
“Because of the extreme l! iberal local government in D.C., there is some indication…that D.C. either is becoming, or has the potential to become, a safe haven for abortionists to do these late-term abortions, who for other reasons have had their licenses revoked in the States and [have] come to the District as a safe haven,” he said.
 
Franks cited one such “notorious” late-term abortionist in his Dear Colleague memo, saying the medical practitioner “had been put out of business in Florida for unethical, negligent behavior, [and had] decided to relocate his late-term abortion practice to the D.C. metro area.”
 
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) responded swiftly to Franks’ announcement, claiming the proposed legislation unfairly targeted the District.
 
“Most Americans respect the honest differences in the nation on abortion,” she wrote in a statement Friday. “Even those who disagree with the views of our residents understand that neither the Co! nstitution nor Supreme Court interpretations allow disparate t! reatment of our residents.”
 
According to Franks, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, however, the Constitution provides the “absolute seminal authority of the Congress over the District of Columbia.”
 
“There are some people who, if they could make a federalism argument, would, but certainly they can’t in this case,” he said. “There’s no question that it’s within the clear purview and constitutional authority of Congress to have legislative authority over the District.”
 
Norton also took issue with Franks’ introducing legislation for the District, thousands of miles from his home district in Arizona.
 
“Instead of spending the recess focused on jumpstarting the economy or attending to the business of his own constituents, Representative Franks appears to have used his time at home figuring out new ways to undemocratically usurp the local authority of American citizens w! ho did not elect him and who have no way to hold him accountable,” she wrote.
 
“There can be no justification for denying the federal taxpaying residents of the nation’s capital the same rights as other American citizens,” Norton added. “If Representative Franks believes his bill represents sound policy, he should introduce a bill that applies to the entire country. We will not stand still as we are singled out for discriminatory treatment.”
 
Voting rights group DC Vote also weighed in on the proposed legislation.
 
"This bill is a clear violation of basic democratic principles,” Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, wrote in a statement Friday.
 
“The people of D.C. did not elect Rep. Franks, or any other members of Congress, who could vote to impose this federal intrusion upon D.C.'s local autonomy,” he added. “If Representative Franks is so intent on using federal power to advance his personal bel! iefs, perhaps he should craft a similar bill that applies to G! lendale, AZ."
 
Franks acknowledged that federalism has been an issue in regards to late-term abortions, but noted he would fully support comparable legislation for his own district and for the country.
 
“I would certainly support this for the entire nation, but there are those that would make a federalism case that it should be left to the states,” he said. “I would be completely supportive of seeing legislation that would protect pain-capable children from being aborted after they’re able to feel pain, in every state.”
 
Franks noted that Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho and Alabama have already passed similar legislation. He has already garnered 40 Congressional cosponsors on his proposed bill, and expects to increase that number to 70 or 80 as the legislation moves forward.
 
The Arizona Congressman also said he would be happy to discuss the matter with Norton, but was unsure what compromise might be reached.
 
â! €œI have no hesitation to talk to her about it, but it appears that probably our priorities would be different,” he said. “Her priority is to essentially create a 51st state of Washington D.C., and I certainly would disagree with that.”
 
For those struggling to increase district rights, the legislation only serves as another slap backwards.
 
"The people of the District of Columbia are once again being used as pawns in a national political game," Zherka concluded.
 
It was a sentiment echoed by Norton, who fought vigorously but in vain to completely remove a GOP-added rider in the House Appropriations fiscal year 2012 budget bill preventing the district from spending local funds on abortion services.
 
“We do not intend to succumb to the insatiable Republican obsession with interfering with the rights of women in our city,” Norton concluded.