The vote was 9-to-7 in favor of the legislation, which now goes to the full House for a vote, possibly as early as Thursday. PROVIDENCE — In a potentially historic move, a Rhode Island legislative committee on Tuesday approved a bill to guarantee the legality of abortion in Rhode Island, despite the vehement opposition of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, the state GOP hierarchy — and a former governor at odds with the state's current Catholic governor over abortion — in this heavily Catholic state. The House Judiciary Commitee vote was 9-to-7 in favor of the legislation, which now goes to the full House for a vote, possibly as early as Thursday. Protesters angrily shouted — "choose life, choose life" — at top volume, after the vote. The legislation would keep abortion legal in Rhode Island, even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized it. A matching Senate bill is slated for a hearing at the same time, and it is likely to draw many of the same activists on both sides of the issue as a grueling House hearing in late January. The last time Rhode Island lawmakers came this close to passing a law to enshrine the key tenets of Roe v. Wade in state law was in 1993, when the full House passed a bill championed by then-Rep. Linda Kushner. On that day in May 1993, The Journal reported: "After a grueling three-hour debate, the House approved the abortion rights measure by a vote of 51 to 42. ... [The vote] marked the first time in the modern political history of this heavily Roman Catholic state that an abortion rights measure has been approved by either chamber of the General Assembly. (Past Assemblies have enacted anti-abortion legislation, most of which has been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.)" The bill died in the Senate that year, which marked a period when abortion-rights supporter Bill Clinton was in the White House and the Supreme Court was viewed as highly unlikely to overturn its Roe v. Wade decision in the near future. In that context, the House vote that year was viewed as largely symbolic. With Donald Trump in the White House and Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court, the warring sides in the decades-long abortion debate now have reason to hope — or alternately, to fear — a reversal. “We know our future in this country hangs in the balance of a few very powerful, very conservative men,” said state Sen. Gayle Goldin, the sponsor of the matching Senate bill, at a recent rally at the State House. The 1993 debate sounded almost word-for-word the same as it does now, more than a quarter-century later. "Once again, the people who would take away the right Rhode Island women have had for 20 years to have safe, legal, medical abortions are making outrageous and untrue claims about a bill to maintain this right," Kushner wrote in an opinion piece that appeared in The Journal on May 6, 1993. "The bill does not enlarge or diminish abortion rights in Rhode Island. Rather, it codifies what has been the medical practice regarding abortion, as outlined in the existing regulations of the Rhode Island Health Department under the legal protection of Roe v. Wade." Then, as now: No abortions would be allowed in the state after "fetal viability" unless a doctor determines that carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten the life or health of the mother. And then, as now: opponents argued that the bill's supporters had a hidden agenda: opening the door to more abortions after the sixth month of pregnancy. About 2,000 abortions were performed in Rhode Island in 2017, which was less than half the already much-shrunken number in 2011, according to Health Department data. Of those who had abortions in 2017, 1,740 were age 21 or older, 201 were between 18 and 20 years old, and 50 were under age 18. It is not clear how many — if any — were post-24-week abortions. One of the trigger points in the current debate is the proposed repeal of Rhode Island's 1970s-era "fetal homicide" law, which equates an assault on a pregnant woman that leads to “the willful killing of an unborn quick child" to manslaughter. Paul Benjamin Linton, the Chicago-based lawyer advising the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee, says this would repeal "the only protection in state law for an unborn child who is killed in the course of an assault against his or her mother which would be murder if the mother died." Though Cranston police tried to use the law in a high-profile 2015 case, a spokeswoman for current Attorney General Peter Neronha said Tuesday that the 1975 law has never been successfully used in a prosecution in Rhode Island. Born R. Smith, the accused in the 2015 case was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to other charges: first-degree murder and arson. As Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, explains the history: "The quick child statute was immediately challenged and declared unconstitutional by the federal district court because it did not contain a 'life or health' exception to post-viability abortions. On appeal, the appeals court reversed the finding, but only on the basis that the doctors challenging the statute did not have 'standing' to challenge the statute." "Thus, the quick child statute has remained on the books, but it has never been enforced due to its constitutional infirmities," Brown said. Even in the 2015 case cited by the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee lobbyist Barth Bracy on Twitter, he said, "The quick child statute was not enforced and it played absolutely no role in the prosecution of the case." The debate has pitted current Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, against former Republican Gov. Donald Carcieri, who was featured in a series of robo-calls over the weekend urging a public show of opposition to the abortion-rights legislation.<doc-sep>Politics & Government House Judiciary Committee Passes Abortion Bill 9-7 The controversial reproductive rights bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of nine to seven on Tuesday night. Reply (1) Members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the abortion bill Tuesday night. (Jennifer Nunes) PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The House Judiciary Committee approved a controversial abortion rights bill Tuesday night by a vote of nine to seven. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on its version of the bill Tuesday night, which stretched into the early hours of Wednesday morning. Representatives Craven, Shanley, McEntee, Almeida, Canario, Casimiro, Edwards, Jackson and McKiernan supported the bill, while Representatives Corvese, Millea, Noret, Place, Roberts, Vella-Wilk and Blake were in opposition. And RPA passes the House Judiciary Committee on a 9-7 vote. On to the House floor!! In Favor: Craven, Shanley, McEntee, Almeida, Canario, Casimro, Edwards, Jackson, McKiernan Opposed: Filippi, Corvese, Millea, Noret, Place, Roberts, Vella Wilkenson. pic.twitter.com/OdVsnwnHVK — Teresa Tanzi (@tanzister) March 5, 2019 Abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood and the Womxn Project applauded the decision. "Anti-abortion lawmakers are hellbent on chipping access to safe, legal abortion to the point where a right without access isn't a right at all. We're fighting to ensure Roe is protected in Rhode Island," Planned Parenthood wrote. Senator Gayle Goldin (D, District 3, Providence) spoke out in support of the legislation and thanked others who testified as well. Testimony on the Senate bill stretched on throughout the night, with the last person being called to speak just before 6 a.m. Wednesday. "Many people will claim adoption is the flip side of the coin of abortion. It is not. I'm an adoptive parent and my journey through the adoption process reinforced my deeply held belief every pregnant person must have the right to make her own choice." Sen @gaylegoldin #repro4RI pic.twitter.com/sRTgBxHhu4 — The Womxn Project (@WomanProjectHQ) March 5, 2019 The bill, titled the "Reproductive Privacy Act" is sponsored by Anastasia P. Williams (D-Dist. 9, Providence). If passed, it would prevent any restrictions to abortion access up until the point of fetal viability, the point when a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb, either with or without medical support. The definition of when fetal viability occurs has changed over the years, but the most generally-accepted threshold is around the 23 to 24-week mark. The American Academy of Pediatrics' official stance is that fetal viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis by the mother's healthcare provider. Williams' bill states that no one, including the state, can interfere with a woman's access to an abortion, interfere with the decision to terminate a pregnancy, or prevent access to contraception. The bill also allows for late-term abortions (past the point of fetal viability) if the mother's life is at stake. Providence Diocese Bishop Thomas Tobin denounced the bill, responding to the vote with a Bible verse Tuesday night.<doc-sep>Politics & Government House Committee Set To Vote On Abortion Rights Bill The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony in its version of the bill this evening as well. Reply Protesters on both sides of the abortion issue gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 18. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday evening on a divisive abortion rights bill. At the same time, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing testimony on its version of the bill. The "Reproductive Privacy Act" is meant to build on reproductive rights protections outlined in Roe v. Wade and update reproductive health laws currently in place in Rhode Island. Under the bill, abortions would be required to be made available up until "fetal viability": the point when a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb, either with or without medical support. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Anastasia P. Williams (D-Dist. 9, Providence), and is similar to a second bill also introduced in the house entitled the "Reproductive Health Care Act." The timing of fetal viability has changed over the years, but the most generally-accepted threshold is around the 23 to 24-week mark. The American Academy of Pediatrics' official stance is that fetal viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis by the mother's healthcare provider. Williams' bill states that no one, including the state, can interfere with a woman's access to an abortion, interfere with the decision to terminate a pregnancy, or prevent access to contraception. The bill also allows for late-term abortions (past the point of fetal viability) if the mother's life is at stake. "With growing threats to reproductive rights from our federal government, the time is now for a new approach to passing legislation protecting a woman's right to choose and enshrining those principles in our state laws," Rep. Williams said of the bill. "This legislation is all about making sure that, regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C., Rhode Island women will have safe, legal access to reproductive health care when and if they need it." The bill is part of an effort by lawmakers across several states to reinforce Roe v. Wade protections in state law in the event it is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill has been met with fierce opposition by anti-abortion groups across Rhode Island, who have staged several demonstrations at the state house. Rhode Island Right To Life called the updated version of the bill "a political fig leaf made of cellophane," adding that the "extreme abortion bill" goes far beyond simply codifying Roe v. Wade.<doc-sep>But wild cards are in play, and some lawmakers on Monday said they were still undecided. PROVIDENCE — The fate of the abortion-rights legislation headed for a vote in a Rhode Island legislative committee on Tuesday could come down to a handful of votes, including that of freshman Rep. Christopher Millea of Cranston, a former State House lawyer. A 47-year-old father of two, Millea told The Journal on Monday: "I have not yet made a decision as to the abortion bill." "I am still reviewing all of...the email messages that I am receiving, the constituent messages, and phone messages," he said. "I have also been reviewing the [reworked bill] and all of the case law that accompanies Roe v. Wade. I will probably not be able to make a decision until right before the vote. "I am personally pro-life," Millea explained. "But I represent not just myself and my family but my entire district, and I need to properly evaluate that. I do not believe in any expansion of abortion, however slight, so I am carefully reading all of my materials." Millea is among the 15 members of the House Judiciary Committee who will be voting on a reworked version of a bill introduced by Rep. Anastasia Williams, the House Labor Committee chairwoman, to protect the legality of abortion in Rhode Island no matter what a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court might do to the Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a constitutional right to early-term abortion. Among the key tenets of that 1973 Supreme decision, which has guided decades of court decisions since: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The bill headed for a vote in Rhode Island, 46 years later, says much the same thing: "The termination of an individual's pregnancy after fetal viability is expressly prohibited except when necessary, in the medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life or health of that individual." Seven of 15 House Judiciary Committee members who will be voting on Tuesday co-sponsored a bill with the same goal as Williams: to protect the legality of abortion in Rhode Island. Another four members of the committee won their reelections with the endorsement of the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee, which has been working hard behind the scenes — alongside the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, the state GOP and former Republican Gov. Donald Carcieri — to try to defeat the reworked bill that surfaced late Friday. One of the newcomers — Republican David Place of Burrillville — confirmed he will be voting an adamant "no" against what he considers an "extreme" piece of legislation that goes far beyond the Roe v. Wade ruling with a "health" exception for late-term abortions that, in his mind, is so vague it could mean "mental health." That puts the potential vote at 7 to 5 for Williams' bill — H5125A — with three wild cards: freshmen Representatives Thomas Noret, James Jackson and Millea. Jackson has not yet responded to a Journal inquiry, and Democrat Noret — a Coventry Police Department retiree — said he remains undecided. "I personally am a pro-choice individual'' he said, because "I don't feel government should be making people's choices. But that's me personally ... I am not there to impose my personal views." Another wild card: The House minority leader, Republican Blake Filippi of Block Island, is an ex-officio voting member of every committee, so he could jump in to tip the balance. (In a phone message, Filippi told The Journal: "I don't know what I'm doing at this time, and I don't think I'm going to do any interviews until after the committee hearing.") But the GOP is not a monolith. On Monday, Republican Rep. Jack Lyle of Lincoln affirmed his support for passage of the Williams bill as a means of "preserving the current legal framework protecting the right to safe, legal abortion as it exists today under Roe vs. Wade, subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and Rhode Island law." "As a Republican, I believe in the values of individual autonomy and freedom," he said. "The rhetoric from leaders of the Rhode Island Republican Party, including Chairman Brandon Bell and former Governor Donald Carcieri, is unacceptable. Building on the false assertions of organizations opposed to safe, legal abortion, too many of my fellow Republicans are making empty claims that these bills go beyond the current parameters of safe, legal abortion in a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion through fear-mongering and dishonesty." Meanwhile, advocates of the legislation disputed opponents' claims that the bill would represent a "radical change" in state law, allow abortions "up to birth" for health reasons without any "legal definition" of health, require the state to pay for abortions by Medicaid-eligible mothers, "water down parental consent laws" by allowing grandparents or adult siblings to make that decision when the parents are dead or unavailable, and "undermine" the Department of Health's authority to regulate facilities where abortions are performed. Planned Parenthood's Craig O'Connor disputed what he called "the opposition's misleading statements." "This legislation does not change Rhode Island law, [which] prevents Medicaid coverage of abortion beyond that required by the Hyde Amendment, does not change the power of the Department of Health to regulate abortion providers just as they regulate and license all medical providers, and preserves the federal so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban," he said. And the bill "does not change the law regarding a ban on state employee coverage of abortion," though it "does remove the ban on [cities and towns providing the coverage to] municipal employees which was found invalid in the case National Education Association of R.I. v. Garrahy." He said the legislation reflects this opinion. Of the proposed repeal of the state's "fetal homicide" law, he said the law is unenforceable. — kgregg@providencejournal.co­m (401) 277-7078 On Twitter: @kathyprojo<doc-sep>
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, the state GOP hierarchy and a former governor stand in opposition. PROVIDENCE — A Rhode Island legislative committee on Tuesday approved a bill to guarantee the legality of abortion in Rhode Island, despite the vehement opposition of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, the state GOP hierarchy and a former governor at odds with the state's current Catholic governor over abortion in this heavily Catholic state. The House Judiciary Committee vote was 9 to 7 in favor of the legislation, which has now been scheduled for a vote by the full House on Thursday. The committee's action led to angry shouts of "choose life, choose life" from a throng of protesters lining the marble stairs that lead up to the rotunda. An hour later, they were still shouting at full volume and waving "Stop Abortion Now" signs. The Rev. Bernard Healey, the priest-lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, called the vote a "stinging rebuke for the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and therefore must be treated with the respect due to a human person. This is the foundation of the Church's social doctrine, including her teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration." "Today’s vote is a low point in the three-century history of the R.I. General Assembly," he said. But the jubilant sponsors, including Rep. Anastasia Williams, the House Labor Committee chairwoman, issued this statement: "We are now closer to securing a woman’s right to privacy and choice in her medical decisions in Rhode Island. We will continue to push forward for passage on the House floor on Thursday.” The legislation would keep abortion legal in Rhode Island even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized it. A Senate committee held a hearing on a matching bill Tuesday night that drew many of the same activists on both sides of the issue as a grueling House hearing in late January. Before the vote, debate within the House committee touched on medical science, religious beliefs and legal interpretations of words such as "health" and "medically necessary," although Rep. James McLaughlin — who is not on the committee — momentarily drew attention to himself and the framed picture he was holding of Christ and a child by bursting into the room with a loud: "How're you doing?" Rep. Arthur Corvese, one of the leading abortion foes in the House, disputed descriptions of the bill as a "strict codification" of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a constitutional right to an early-term abortion, while allowing restrictions and prohibitions later "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The bill now headed for a House vote, 46 years later, says much the same thing: “The termination of an individual’s pregnancy after fetal viability is expressly prohibited except when necessary, in the medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life or health of that individual.” "This is the opposite of a strict codification," Democrat Corvese of North Providence said of the bill in front of him. He cited as examples the proposed repeal of Rhode Island's own "partial-birth abortion" law, which was ruled unconstitutional, and a 1970s "fetal homicide" law that has never been used in Rhode Island, according to the attorney general's office, to successfully prosecute the death of a fetus as a result of the murder or serious injury of the mother. Republican Rep. Blake Filippi, the House Minority Leader, said repeal would leave Rhode Island without a way to prosecute a "crazy boyfriend" who stomps the stomach of his pregnant girlfriend to deliberately kill the fetus she is carrying. "We are taking away the crime against the fetus. We are denying legal status to a fetus that could be eight and a half months old," Filippi argued. But House Judiciary Chairman Robert Craven, a former state prosecutor, said there are "a plethora" of other potential charges, including "felony assault with permanent injury resulting ... 20 years." "I believe that this is a good thing," said Craven, acknowledging his upbringing as a Catholic, "and I believe that, quite frankly, the time has come for the General Assembly — and the House in particular and this committee specifically — to recognize those rights of a woman and to say, look, it's your body.