IndexLegislationEffectsSocial ConditionsSupportSocial Justice IssuesConcluding ThoughtsThis policy analysis document explores legislation H.R. 36 - 115th Congress: Protection of the Unborn Child Capable of Pain Act. This legislation focuses on the legal consequences for anyone attempting an abortion if the likely age of the fetus was 20 weeks or more. This document goes into explicit detail about this legislation, including; the objectives and values ​​of the bill, the effects it has on society and individuals, the relevant versions of this bill, who supports and who opposes this bill, and concluding thoughts and opinions on this bill . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Legislation The proposed legislation that will be analyzed is H.R. 36 – 115th Congress: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation was proposed at the federal level, where it was considered in the House and passed. However, in the Senate, the legislation was read twice and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. The goal or intended purpose of this legislation was to have legal consequences for any individual who attempted an abortion if the likely age of the fetus was 20 weeks or more. This legislation specifically targeted doctors, Planned Parenthood, and OBGYNs who perform abortions. Women who undergo abortion will not be criminalized. The legal consequences of this action for any employee would be as follows: a fine, five years in prison, or both. However, there are some exceptions to this legislation, which are as follows: when the abortion is necessary due to the life of the pregnant woman or if the woman was pregnant due to rape or incest. This legislation also states that if abortion is necessary, the doctor must follow certain requirements during the procedure. The goal of this legislation was to ban abortion after 20 weeks due to the pain it would inflict on the fetus. There are no clearly stated values ​​in this proposal, however there are many that are implicit. The implicit values ​​are the protection of the unborn and support for pro-life. This proposal is based more on a Republican position than on a Christian background. There are also financial effects that could come into play with this legislation if it were enacted. The Cbo. gov (2018) estimates that Medicaid costs would increase due to increased birth rates. The CBO assumes that abortions would occur before 20 weeks and that pregnancies reaching full term would increase. However, it is estimated that Medicaid would raise $175 million over the 2018-2027 period. If this legislation were enacted, it is likely that state and federal taxes would be increased. The parties who would be responsible for paying this increase would be the taxpayers. The sponsor of this bill is Representative Trent Franks. He was in Congress from 2003 to 2017. He is affiliated with the Republican Party. The last intervention on this bill was by the Senate on 04/10/2017. The bill was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the Judiciary Committee. This bill passed the House. It was debated in the Senate and they decided not to pursue it. Effects This bill could affect any female individual who has conceived and is considering abortion. Some individuals believe that this legislation would take away the rights women have over their own bodies. They believe that women should be able to make their own decisionson your body. In any case, if this legislation were implemented, it could affect many women. Statistically, abortion patients in the United States differ in age, race, and income. Most abortion patients in the United States occur within their 20s. Race is also another factor that could be taken into consideration when discussing who this legislation will affect the most. Statistically, the rate of abortion patients was as follows: White (39%), Black (28%), Hispanic (25%), Asian (6%), and other races/ethnicities (3%). Finally, income influences abortion patient statistics. Statistically, poverty has had a significant impact on abortion patients. People living below the poverty line represent 49% of people who have abortions, while 29% of patients still live right on the poverty line. Gender is obviously not affected by this legislation as male genders are unable to conceive. Social conditions There are many social conditions surrounding this proposal. Abortion has always been a huge social justice issue within our nation and a very opinionated topic. This proposal, however, stated that new evidence had been found that a fetus can experience pain 20 weeks or more after fertilization. New evidence has also claimed that surgeons performing these procedures administer anesthesia to the fetus. Anesthesia is used to prevent hard or severe movement during surgery. This concludes that the fetus may experience pain during 20 weeks (or more after fertilization). This legislation was considered due to concerns many people had regarding their unborn child. Supportive individuals want to defend the unborn, however, non-supportive individuals want to defend women's rights and their choices about their bodies. The push for this legislation is due to the 20 states that had already banned abortion with their own specific version. During this time, Republicans controlled Congress – this gave supporters of this legislation hope that the bill would pass. Finally, this bill was introduced around the time 10 videos were released by Planned Parenthood. These videos included exposure of Planned Parenthood selling body parts of babies they had aborted. This was a huge event that raised concern among many people and was a time when many felt like they had to defend the unborn. Historical Connections This piece of legislation has historical and precedent connections within government. This legislation has been considered by the House twice and passed previously. The previous versions were introduced as the 2013 and 2015 versions. The 2013 version was known as HR 1797 (113th): Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the 2015 version was known as HR 36 (114th): Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protect Act. Support The sponsor of this bill is Representative Trent Franks. He was in Congress from 2003 to 2017. He is affiliated with the Republican Party. Trent Franks is a huge advocate for the unborn. Quotes by Trent Franks; “Late-term abortion in America has its defenders, but no true or principled defenses. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act aims to provide basic protection to mothers and their unborn children entering the sixth month of gestation.” He is passionate about not only protecting the unborn child, but also the mother. Another key player who supported this proposal was Kevin McCarthy, a House Majority Leader. He quoted: “The bill will protect the voiceless, i.