'Latinos are supporting him this time around'

'America can never again allow the weaponization of the federal government'

'The individual ignored the officer's commands'

'I don’t know what I was thinking'

'Wrexham Lager has a 140-year-old recipe and a storied history'

Persistent Issues With Polling Methodology Could Spell Disaster For Democrats In November

'Finally embracing the opportunity to vote early'

The artist's lawyer has denied all allegations filed against him

Adding protections to anti-discrimination laws

Abortion is on the ballot in the 2024 election. It’s literally on the ballot in 10 states, with voters deciding whether to amend their constitutions to guarantee abortion access through most or all of pregnancy. But it’s also on the ballot in the presidential election because the two candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, have different positions on whether, and how forcefully, the federal government should call the shots. Trump says that states should be able decide whether, and to what extent, to restrict abortion. Harris, as well as some Senate candidates, claim in their ads that electing Trump would lead to a “national abortion ban.” That’s unlikely, since Trump says he would veto such a ban if Congress ever passed one. “Veto,” Merriam-Webster tells us, is the opposite of “approve.” Ya don’t say. Harris, in contrast, says that states should have no say at all and that Congress must prevent them from limiting abortion in any way. As a senator, she cosponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, federal legislation that would prohibit state or local governments from doing anything that could, even potentially or indirectly, limit abortion. This would include measures that large majorities of Americans, in pro-life states or even nationally, support, such as bans on elective abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy. But it gets worse. Not only would the Women’s Health Protection Act prevent any pro-life laws or policies going forward, it would require state and local governments to repeal any already on the books. In other words, no state anywhere in America could, no matter how its citizens felt about it, ever have any laws, rules, regulations, practices, or anything else that could conceivably (yes, that pun was intended) limit abortion in any way. Today, 41 states prohibit abortion during different stages of pregnancy. Fourteen of them ban abortion from conception, four after six weeks, two after 12 weeks, two after 15 or 18 weeks, and 19 after 20 weeks. Lest you think that these abortion “bans” actually prevent many abortions, nearly 94% of abortions nationally occur before 12 weeks. The Women’s Health Protection Act would require every one of these 41 states to repeal its abortion ban. Mississippi’s 15-week ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2022, covers only 4% of abortions, but it still has to go. Utah’s 18-week ban only prohibits about 2% of abortions, but it’s still too strong. Eleven states ban abortion after “viability,” or when an unborn child might live outside the womb. That’s generally considered to be at about 24 weeks, but that law is also out the door. Harris’ claim that the Women’s Health Protection Act simply “codifies” Roe v. Wade is not only false, but it’s especially deceptive coming from a lawyer who should know better. Even the Supreme Court in Roe said that states may ban abortion after viability and used words such as “mother” and “unborn children” more than 100 times. Except for the “W” in its title, the Women’s Health Protection Act doesn’t even use the word “woman.” Roe v. Wade did not require taxpayers to pay for elective abortions, but this act would. Roe v. Wade also allowed states to require at least some level of parental involvement, such as notification or consent, when a young girl gets an abortion. This act would not. In other words, the Women’s Health Protection Act would prefer coercion of a girl to have an abortion over any chance that her family or friends might help her decide otherwise. Abortion is on the Nov. 5 ballot, and the choice is pretty stark. Abortion advocates like Harris call themselves “pro-choice” but, it turns out, want to deny any choice to anyone about whether to protect human beings in the womb. Thomas Jipping serves as senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Heritage is listed for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect any institutional position for Heritage or its Board of Trustees. The post Harris Wants to Repeal All State Abortion Limits appeared first on The Daily Signal.