Dear Dr. Diana XXXXXXXXX,


Thank you for contacting me about S. 1975 or the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA).

I believe the WHPA would be more appropriately named the "Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act". While proponents claim the bill codifies Roe v. Wade, this legislation goes much further. It would undue all existing limits on abortion and prevent future state and federal attempts to set limits on abortion. In fact, the stated purpose of the bill is to "permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations ... and to promote access to abortion services." Oh yeah, let's cherry pick the words: the ... part reads "or requirements that single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and make abortion services more difficult to access" and the quote doesn't end in a period, but rather "and women’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States;" When a bill's sole purpose is to limit the ability to protect unborn children and to encourage the taking of human life, I will oppose it at every turn.

No, it only codifies a woman's right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You can't have it both ways: you cannot prohibit abortion and at the same time say that a woman's right to exist isn't affected. This attitude effectively places women at the same level as breeding stock. Additionally, it DOES NOT "undue" all limits on abortion, but only limits the harassment and pain that is heaped on those seeking relief.

The bill prohibits parental notification and consent laws, waiting periods, health and safety standards for abortion clinics, ultrasound requirements, limitations on do-it-yourself chemical abortion, and "any law that singles out abortion or affects access to abortion." Not only would this result in countless lives lost to the horrors of abortion, it would put both moms and babies at risk. The preemption of state law itself is a totally unacceptable example of federal overreach of Oklahoma's state rights.

In addition, the WHPA creates new precedent for the "viability standard", or when a baby is considered likely to survive outside of the mother's womb. We have seen children survive outside the womb as early as 21 weeks. Unsurprisingly, this bill ignores the science and allows the viability standard to be determined according to any individual abortionist. But it does follow the science. There is no date nor time stated, but rather vaguely written as "viability." This number of weeks changes as medical science and our understanding changes, and babies previously thought to be nonviable have survived, with proper medical care. Since the 'viability standard' moves, it only makes sense to keep it vague to allow it to be modified as needed, WITHOUT legislative oversight.

The bill also poses sweeping challenges to every Americans' right to live in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The WHPA explicitly carves out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will likely result in healthcare workers being forced to perform abortions and religious organizations being forced to pay for abortions through employer sponsored insurance without regard to conscience objections. It does not force anyone to do anything. If the doctor, or the hospital, or the healthcare worker objects, then so be it. What the bill does do, is say that the provider has a right to provide the service and that the provider MAY (not SHALL, not WILL, but MAY) do so. And the fear that it "will likely result in healthcare workers being forced" to provide a medical service, and the "religious organizations being forced to pay" for them is fear mongering. Have either of these occurred in the last 50 years, since Roe v Wade?

In short, the “Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act” is pro-abortion overreach determined to violate the consciences of Americans, undermine state rights, and mandate that every state allow for the taking of unborn life up until birth. All I can do is shake my head on this one. As you may know, last year, the House of Representatives passed the WHPA without Republican support. In February, I spoke on the Senate floor against this bill when it was put forward for debate. In a procedural vote of 46-48, the measure was defeated.

Senator Schumer brought the bill up again in response to a draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. You can watch my comments on the Senator floor about this latest version here. I will continue to oppose passage of this bill, which failed to pass again in a vote of 49-51.

Embryology shows that from the earliest stages of life, each person is a distinct and whole human being. There is no difference in value between the embryo every human is or once was and the person they are today or will become. The only difference between a child in the womb and a kindergartener on the playground is time.

[Wow, let's throw SCIENCE in here! There is so much more. Embryology, by the way, shows that the embryo growing into a fetus (and further into a form more recognizable as human) appears the same as any other mammal. In fact, I challenge you to pick out the human embryo from a set of pictures of other mammalian embryos (or reptilian, or avian). If the creature has four limbs, they look much alike. So no, the embryo is not a "whole human being." ]

In the U.S. we have laws to protect children outside the womb from abuse, harm, and death. Just because they are smaller people does not mean they should be any less protected by the law. I also believe as a society, we need to show compassion for abortion-determined women, not criminalize them. We need community, nonprofit, and faith leaders to rise up to help both men and women who face an unexpected or difficult pregnancy. We can stand with women and their children.

[You could stand with women and their children, but you won't. It will be the community, the nonprofit, the faith leaders, who advise and help, all with the knowledge that they could be the next ones sued or imprisoned, all for helping their neighbor. Just ask any Texan. And you state that the woman needs not be criminalized? Since when? Isn't "abortion is murder?"]

I hope this information is helpful to you. You can hear more about my perspective on when life begins and my ideas on how to protect life until natural death, on my podcast. Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.

Your perspective on when life begins is flawed and based on Judeo-Christian teaching, not science. Other religions have other ideas as to when life begins. Expect that this will be brought back up on religious grounds, as you cannot have it both ways.


In God We Trust,


James Lankford
United States Senator