By Josué Sierra, Director of Communications, Pennsylvania Family Council
On Wednesday, October 22, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee advanced seven sweeping abortion bills, each designed to dismantle existing pro-life protections and expand abortion access at every stage of pregnancy. All seven measures passed on a 14-12 party-line vote, with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican opposed.
The votes followed a hearing dominated by abortion-industry talking points and punctuated by a celebratory post from Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates claiming that “lawmakers advanced a major package of pro-reproductive-freedom bills.” Their language—“privacy safeguards,” “clinic protections,” “removal of mandatory delays”—masks what these bills actually do: remove protections that save lives, shield abortion facilities from accountability, and pave the way for taxpayer-funded abortion until birth.
HB 670 could be used by prosecutors to punish those who peacefully pray or offer alternatives outside abortion facilities. HB 1640, HB 1641, HB 1643, and HB 1966 build legal “shields” for abortion providers, blocking accountability and preventing cooperation with investigations, arrests, subpoenas, extradition, or lawsuits from other states. HB 2005 repeals Pennsylvania’s 24-hour waiting and counseling period, eliminating a key safeguard meant to ensure informed consent. And HB 1957 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a so-called “right to personal reproductive liberty.”
That amendment – HB 1957 – would go far beyond Roe v. Wade. It would make Pennsylvania one of the most extreme abortion states in the nation by enshrining abortion until birth, eliminating parental consent laws, and forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.
As Dan Bartkowiak, Chief Strategic Officer for Pennsylvania Family Council, noted on X:
“If there’s a ‘right’ to abort a baby put into the PA Constitution, it will mean an abortion can happen at any time, for any reason, and taxpayers forced to pay.”
Professor Elizabeth Kirk’s testimony: “Strict in theory, fatal in fact”
During the hearing, Professor Elizabeth Kirk, a law professor at The Catholic University of America, offered a clear legal analysis of HB 1957. Her testimony revealed the sweeping, radical nature of the proposal.
“The predictable and likely effect of this amendment will be to invalidate existing Pennsylvania law with respect to abortion specifically, but reproduction more generally, and deter the enactment of future commonsense legislation.”
Kirk explained that the amendment’s language imposes strict scrutiny, the highest legal test, which virtually guarantees that any limit on abortion would be struck down.
“It’s such a high bar that, colloquially, it’s referred to as strict in theory, fatal in fact, meaning that very few laws survive challenge under this rigorous test.”
She also warned that the amendment’s broad use of the term “individual” could apply to minors.
“The plain text makes no distinction between adults and minors. It suggests that Pennsylvania courts may grant an absolute right to abortion or any other reproductive decision, which substantially weakens the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting parental rights.”
And she noted the financial implications:
“Every state court that recognized an independent right to abortion and adopted strict scrutiny has struck down limits on taxpayer funding of abortion on nondiscrimination grounds.”
Despite her detailed testimony, Democratic lawmakers offered little substantive response and pressed forward without debate. Not a single one challenged her points.
Following the hearing, Professor Kirk took to X (formerly Twitter) to clarify just how misleading some of the other testimony had been. She wrote:
Her warning underscores how proponents are already using deceptive language to minimize the true consequences of this amendment — even as they seek to embed it permanently in Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
The Church Ambassador Network
Members of the Pennsylvania Family Council and our Church Ambassador Network were present at the hearing, seated in the front row as witnesses to the proceedings. Every representative who spoke up for life took time afterward to thank our team for being there.
Several of the participating Church Ambassador Network pastors and staff were able to pray with legislators once the hearing adjourned. Michael Kaucher, our Capitol Engagement Director, noted that, “Watching the committee vote unfold made clear that we are in the midst of a deep spiritual battle. Yet knowing that truth gives us grace to reach out to both parties, trusting that the Holy Spirit can change hearts as we carry the light of Christ into the Capitol.”
A celebration of euphemisms
Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates quickly praised the outcome, declaring it a victory for what they call “freedom.” What they euphemistically call “privacy safeguards” are legal shields for abortion providers; what they call “clinic protections” are immunity clauses that protect the abortion business from malpractice; and what they call “removal of mandatory delays” is the elimination of a reflection period that has helped countless women make more informed choices.
As Pennsylvania Family Council President Michael Geer wrote in his Commentary earlier this week:
“They are relentless. Who am I talking about? Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.
What is it about the deliberate taking of an innocent human life through abortion that attracts hundreds of millions of dollars in political donations, fuels aggressive and sometimes violent activism, and celebrates abortion up to birth?
Whatever it is, I’m reminded of the verse in Proverbs 8:36, ‘But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.’”
This legislative onslaught is only one part of what Michael described as a full-court press by the abortion lobby—an aggressive, coordinated effort unfolding simultaneously in the legislature, in the courts, and at the ballot box.
In the courts, the abortion industry is pursuing a major case that could fundamentally reshape Pennsylvania’s pro-life protections. On November 5, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court will hear oral arguments in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services—a case brought by Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities seeking to force taxpayer funding of elective abortions.
If successful, the case could open the door for courts to invent a “constitutional right” to abortion until birth under Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
And just one day earlier, on November 4, three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices—David Wecht, Christine Donohue, and Kevin Dougherty—will appear on the ballot for retention elections. All three previously ruled in Planned Parenthood’s favor in this same case, sending it back to the lower court and signaling openness to creating a constitutional “right to abortion.” Two of them have publicly campaigned on support for “abortion rights.”
A “Yes” vote will give them another ten-year term; a “No” vote will end their tenure. Voters can learn more at PAFamilyVoter.com.
What’s at stake
The abortion lobby’s campaign seeks to erase every protection for unborn children, remove parental involvement, and force citizens to subsidize the abortion industry. Yet, Pennsylvanians have consistently supported reasonable safeguards like informed consent, parental notification, and limits on late-term abortion.
These seven bills now move to the full House for consideration. If the constitutional amendment passes both chambers in two consecutive sessions, it would then go to voters for approval—effectively rewriting Pennsylvania’s Constitution to guarantee abortion on demand.
The stakes could not be higher.
Take action
Pennsylvanians who cherish life cannot remain silent. Visit our Citizen Action Center to send a message to your legislators urging them to oppose these seven dangerous bills and to reject the proposed constitutional amendment.
Pray for wisdom for our judges, courage for our lawmakers, and compassion for women facing unplanned pregnancies.
And on November 4, make your voice heard at the ballot box—for life, for families, and for the future of Pennsylvania.
Follow us on Social:
Pennsylvania’s for human life Scranton chapter is having their prayer breakfast this Saturday November 1st and I have been asked to prepare something on the bills mentioned in this article. I would truly appreciate it if you would get back to me with permission to use your article, reference your site, let people go there to submit commas their legislators as well as use a printed out copy, perhaps shortened but not altered otherwise to hand out at the prayer breakfast. I am a peripheral bystander, and you guys have been up to your knees or deeper and I appreciate everything you have time, I would like to tag on to your work instead of making a shoddy effort to redo what you have already done so well
thank you
Frank Schell MD
vice president Scranton chapter Pennsylvanians for human life
Hi Frank,
As we discussed over email, you have permission for all the requested. Thank you for spreading the word.
I’d also suggest you encourage everyone to sign up for our email alerts so they get our action alerts as these bills progress through the legislature.
~ Josue Sierra
Dir. of Communications
Finally some good bills that actually protect the given right to the bodies and health of those able to carry.
Pro-lifers haven’t done anything to help the abandoned or unwanted children who now suffer in the systems that abuse, use, and neglect them.
Pro-Lifers, if y’all read this, be better and start standing for the children starving without families. Start standing for the children who are adopted merely for the state funding and tax return payout. Stay for the ones who are here that you ignore.
I will always stand for the right of choice. Your ideals are not universal. Stay in your lane, focus on your own life. You do not get to control anyone. Keep your religious mythology out of it.
You must also work towards affordability in the end for these lives you demand protection for. The cost of just birthing a child alone is a lifetime financial debt.
You must fight for that change. Your disgust, assigned shame, vitriol, hate, and your prayers are not enough to fix this system. Work towards affordable health systems, work towards safe children’s care, work towards fixing these broken systems.
You must rise for this. You must care in a way that actually matters.
Ah yes — the old “if you don’t solve every social problem, you can’t oppose killing babies” argument.
Let’s be honest: that’s not moral reasoning; that’s moral evasion.
You’re saying unless pro-lifers eliminate poverty, fix health care, and make childbirth free, you reserve the right to dismember a human being in the womb. That’s like saying unless firefighters solve arson, homelessness, and bad traffic, they shouldn’t put out burning houses. It’s absurd on its face.
Let’s clear this up:
1. Human value isn’t based on finances. A child’s right to live doesn’t hinge on your bank account balance or hospital billing system. If we made “affordability” the measure of human worth, then the poor would have fewer rights — a view civilized people rightly reject.
2. Moral clarity matters more than moral theatrics. You demand that pro-lifers “care in a way that actually matters.” But protecting a human life from being intentionally destroyed is caring in a way that actually matters — it’s literally the foundation of every other form of compassion.
3. Blaming pro-lifers for the cost of childbirth is a neat rhetorical trick, but it dodges the question. The core issue is whether it’s ever okay to intentionally kill an innocent human being. If not, then abortion is wrong, regardless of the price tag of delivery.
And as I wrote in my first reply, pro-lifers do work for better systems: thousands of pregnancy centers offer free medical care, housing, childcare assistance, job training, and adoption support — without demanding a single abortion in return. So spare us the lecture about “doing something that actually matters.”
If your argument boils down to “life is expensive, so let’s make it cheaper by ending it,” maybe the problem isn’t the cost of birth, but the bankruptcy of your moral logic.
Draco,
Let’s clear away the false rhetoric and ask one central question:
What is the unborn?
If the unborn are not human beings, then no justification for abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human beings, then no justification for killing them is adequate. Everything else — “choice,” “bodily autonomy,” or claims about the foster care system — is simply a distraction from that moral question.
Science is clear on this: from the moment of conception, a distinct, living, whole human being exists. He or she is not part of the mother’s body but a separate organism with his or her own DNA, developing in the way all humans do — just earlier in the timeline.
So, to defend abortion, one must defend the idea that it’s morally acceptable to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Everything else the commenter raised (poverty, child welfare, adoption abuse) may deserve serious attention, but they do not justify homicide. We would never say, “Let’s allow parents to kill toddlers because the foster system is broken.” Killing innocent people is not an acceptable solution to social problems.
Second, the argument that “pro-lifers don’t care about born children” is not only false, it’s a textbook ad hominem fallacy — attacking the people rather than addressing the argument. Whether or not pro-lifers are kind, generous, or active in foster care does nothing to prove that abortion is morally right. A lack of charity on my part wouldn’t suddenly make it okay to kill children in the womb.
But for the record, pro-lifers are helping born children. Thousands of pregnancy resource centers across the U.S. provide food, housing, medical care, job training, parenting classes, baby supplies, and adoption connections — for free. Many of those same pro-life families foster, adopt, and volunteer in social services. The pro-life movement’s compassion doesn’t end at birth — it extends from womb to tomb.
Finally, saying “keep your religion out of it” misses the point. The claim that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being is not a religious claim — it’s a moral one. You don’t need a Bible to recognize that killing babies is wrong any more than you need a Bible to know racism or theft is wrong. Moral truths don’t lose validity just because they’re also affirmed by religious people.
In short:
• Abortion kills an innocent human being.
• No amount of social injustice makes that acceptable.
• And dismissing pro-lifers personally does nothing to refute that moral reality.
If “choice” means the right to intentionally kill a defenseless human, then that’s not a choice we should celebrate — it’s one we should end.
I’m strongly against these proposed bills supporting murder of an innocent life. Life is from the womb to the tomb. Please vote against these evil bills.
Facebook is not letting me post this…I must be doing something wrong. The post tab isn’t coming up.
Hi Pamela. So sorry that’s not working. I tweaked settings — let me know if that fixed it? ~ Josue