Overview of WHB/22-6-9

Maggie Chenoweth, Ana Suarez –

White House Bill 22-6-9, An Act To Prevent Bans or Restrictive Measures on Reproductive Healthcare, was written and presented by delegates Kaelyn Nuckoles and Clayton Morrow and was passed by the White House. This bill’s main purpose is to prevent unnecessarily restrictive laws and bans mainly in women’s reproductive health and dealing with abortions. This bill makes specifications about abortion legalities, including Trigger laws, Heartbeat bills, and more. The requirement of manipulative tactics to urge the patron to not have an abortion does not include education on abortions related to breast cancer or other health issues, waiting period requirements, interference with discrete minor abortion access which covers minors over the age of 13, or interference with abortion through pills.

While this amendment was being presented, there was an unfriendly amendment presented to get rid of lines 16-19 which would remove the piece of section 2 that makes heartbeat bills illegal. Debate was limited to one round of pro and con debate following the motion, and the amendment failed. Some delegates of the White House believed this bill was too extreme, with lines 16-18 saying that a pregnant person can have an abortion up to the final 4 weeks before the expected due date.

Later in the debate, after the amendment was failed, delegate Braude from Webb High School stated, “…less than 2% of abortions happen in the third trimester and they’re only when the mother is in danger… if abortion is banned, people won’t stop having abortions, they will just have them in an unsafe manner that puts the mother in danger.” This bill will be of no cost to the state, as the people getting the abortion will pay for the procedure.

Another pro speaker, who addressed the floor and may have helped sway people to pass the bill, was delegate Conard from Valor College Prep, who brought up the statistic that 95% of women do not regret their abortion and believe it had to be done. The presenters of the bill also believe that their bill will give power back to the women who are having abortions and help the overcrowded foster care and adoption agencies. These amazing pro addresses and efficient and effective debate are why bill WHB/22-6-9 was passed by the White House. 

The following is an interview with delegates Kaelyn Nuckoles and Clayton Morrow:

AS:  Thank you for your interview! Could you do a short introduction of your bill?

KN: Yeah, of course! So we wanted to write a bill on reproductive rights, but we wanted to make sure that it appealed to people pro-choice and pro-life because we had a major emphasis on the safety of women. Because abortions are going to happen no matter what, it’s just a matter of whether women have the option to do it safely or not, so we wanted to write about that.

AS: Alright! So … how do restrictions against abortions negatively affect women?

KN: Well, it definitely increases the maternal death rate, which is something I brought up in my bill quite a lot. 8-10% of the maternal death rate is made up by women who die during childbirth or die during at-home, illegal abortions. It negatively affects them because they will not go to hospitals to seek treatment, possibly for fatal complications, because they will get arrested, and it will also protect children from being in the very toxic and over-filled foster system.

AS: Line 16 through 19 [of your bill] caused quite a controversy. Why did you decline to amend your bill to erase these lines?

KN: So … they wanted to erase everything about the not letting trigger bills, heartbeat bills, or waiting periods pass; and they wanted to only leave the parts about … say … no one is able to intervene with Plan B or birth control, or insurance providers have to offer insurance for abortion and can’t deny it. The problem is that the title of our bill literally focused on the part that bans the bills against abortion, and they were trying to delete the entire basis of our bill … which is those few lines.

AS: How would you respond to the people that consider your bill polarizing?

KN: Apparently a lot of people had a problem with me trying to take away the man’s choice as to whether the woman has this baby or not, and I highly disagree. I know someone asked me a question like “why do you think this is okay?” and I was like, well, the man didn’t carry the baby for 9 months, but I genuinely think it’s about bodily autonomy and it should be the women’s choice … 

AS: Is there anything else you would like to state about your bill?

KN: I am very excited it did pass. I am very concerned about it passing Senate, but I really was super interested in writing this bill … I am very passionate about the topic. I’m very glad that so many people agreed.

AS: Thank you for your statements and good luck!