Democrat Hancock defends decision to bring abortion bill to Iowa Senate floor

Abortion discussions in Iowa will likely take center stage next week, when Senate Democrats plan to release their version of a bill that would ban abortion procedures after 20 weeks gestation.

House File 657 would ban all abortions after 20 weeks, except in cases of medical emergency. The bill includes a provision (Section 3.2b) that mandates “the physician shall terminate the human pregnancy in the manner which, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, termination of the human pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk than any other available method of the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

Although at first glance this section appears to provide an exception for health of the the mother, it further states that “a greater risk shall not be deemed to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct which would result in the pregnant woman’s death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

The bill was originally introduced in response to Nebraska doctor LeRoy Carhart’s announced intention to open a clinic, which would provide, among other health care services, late-term abortions in Council Bluffs, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal’s hometown.

However, pro-choice advocacy groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, have said while the legislation may aim to ban abortions after 20 weeks, a single line in the bill — “[I]t is recognized that life begins at fertilization” — would effectively ban all abortion in Iowa, and wage war on women’s reproductive rights.

“This bill threatens the health and safety of Iowa women,” Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO Jill June said Friday in a prepared statement. “Anti-choice legislators are not considering all the ramifications a bill like this will have on Iowa women.”

Pro-choice advocates, including June, have said throughout the session that House File 657 fails to consider “different outcomes” of pregnancy, including “miscarriage, fetal anomalies, delivery, still-birth and abortion.”

The Iowa Department of Public Health reported six abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in 2009, June said. Figures for 2010 are not yet available.

Ben Stone, executive director the ACLU of Iowa, said health risks posed by House File 657 will increase in rural areas, where medical and health resources are not as abundant as in urban areas.

“It reveals the priorities of those who support it, and [one of those priorities] isn’t Iowa women,” Stone told The Iowa Independent this week.  “It’s a dangerous bill. It needs to be opposed.”

Pro-life groups disagree. There are no abortion restrictions in Iowa code right now, Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, said this week. House File 657 would mandate “some protection of human life,” he said.

The Iowa Catholic Conference did not officially give support to another abortion bill that was introduced to the Legislature this session, House file 153, better known as the “Personhood Bill.” However, the Conference believed House File 657 to be a better vehicle in protecting unborn children.

“We’ve been supportive the whole time, and will keep on being supportive,” Chapman said. “We’ll see where it goes.”

In a rarely-used legislative tactic, 26 of 50 Iowa senators moved Tuesday to discharge the bill from committee and force it to the Senate floor, where it can be debated and possibly approved by the full chamber.

Two Democrats broke with their caucus, voting in favor of the discharge. Sens. Tom Hancock, of Epworth, and Joe Seng, of Davenport, were the two who collaborated with all Senate Republicans.

“I am a pro-life, Catholic Democrat,” Hancock told The Iowa Independent Friday. “I have never wavered on my stance on abortion.”

Hancock called the caucus atmosphere “diverse” when it comes to House File 657, though it was not characterized as tense. Gronstal has not given adverse indication toward the decision Hancock and Seng made to force the bill to the floor, Hancock said.

“Not everyone feels like I do,” he said. “There’s just a very diverse feeling in our caucus on this bill. But not at any time in the seven years I’ve been here has Senator Gronstal said anything one way or another on how I vote. He has never chastised me, that’s the honest to God truth.”

Hancock and Gronstal share the same opinion on abortion — they don’t like it, nor do they want to see a clinic performing abortion procedures after 20 weeks in the Hawkeye State.

Gronstal, whose district was targeted by the Iowa GOP Wednesday with robocalls urging constituents to call on him to take action on the abortion bill, said this week that he believes while abortion procedures are to remain as the choice made by the woman and her family, he personally does not like abortion.

The Senate Majority Leader has yet to comment on when — or if — debate will happen.

Iowa GOP members — staunch supporters of House File 657 — said Wednesday Gronstal has obstructed the bill from being debated and ultimately voted on.  Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said Gronstal’s lack of action has gone “from denying the will of the people, to threatening the lives of the unborn.”

“The vast majority of his constituents have spoken clearly that they want an up or down vote to keep Dr. Carhart out their community and members of his own party are urging action,” Strawn said Wednesday in a release. “It’s time for Gronstal to stand up for Iowa’s unborn and not continue to hide behind legislative procedure.”

Sen Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) is running the bill in the Senate. Thursday, Bolkcom said he “taking the time to become familiar” with the legislation, and was drafting amendments, including one that would stop Carhart’s Iowa clinic from coming to fruition.

That amendment may find support among even Democrats.

“No way do I want him here,” Hancock said of Carhart, adding that other Senate Democrats seem as though “they’re being pulled” in different directions when it comes to Carhart setting up shop in Iowa.

Bolkcom’s top priority on the bill right now, he told the Iowa Independent Thursday afternoon, is to “thoroughly address the constitutionality of it,” specifically citing the 20-week ban and the “life begins at fertilization” provisions.

“Like I said, we want to address our concerns about constitutionality, and address our concerns about protecting the health and lives of women,” Bolkcom said, adding he believes the choice to have an abortion is “not a place where politicians should be meddling.”

Bolkcom anticipates a draft will be completed early next week. Seng did not respond to The Iowa Independent’s request for comment.