Urging the Congress of the United States to propose for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution which would prohibit, with one exception, the practice of abortion within the United States or in any place subject to their jurisdiction or, in the alternative, applying to Congress to call a convention, pursuant to Article V of that Constitution, for the specific and limited purpose of proposing such an amendment to that Constitution for ratification.
If adopted, HJR104 would significantly impact federal and state laws regarding abortion, effectively nullifying the protections granted under Roe v. Wade. The resolution emphasizes the importance of recognizing the rights of the unborn, proposing that the word 'person' be redefined to include all human beings, regardless of their stage of development. Moreover, the proposed amendment includes clauses that would allow for certain medical procedures to protect the mother, indicating a narrowly defined exception rather than a broad allowance for abortion services.
HJR104 urges Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit almost all abortions, with limited exceptions, in order to protect what the bill characterizes as innocent human life. The resolution argues that American laws should fully protect human life from the point of conception and criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, claiming it has led to the demise of this protection across many states. The bill outlines historical attempts by state legislatures to overturn Roe v. Wade through various joint resolutions and highlights the need for continued efforts in this direction.
HJR104 raises considerable debate surrounding the contentious issue of abortion rights in the U.S. Supporters advocate for the protection of unborn life and propose this amendment as a necessary step towards broader rights for fetuses. Critics, on the other hand, argue that such measures undermine women's rights and reproductive freedoms, raising questions around personal choice, healthcare access, and the implications of altering constitutional interpretations. The bill's progression and the call for a potential constitutional convention could ignite further division among lawmakers and constituents alike.