H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona.   The bill, if enacted into law, would ban most abortions where the fetal age is believed to be 20 weeks or greater.

At least 36 states presently have laws restricting what are known as "late term" abortions, which account for roughly 1% of all abortions.   What is most unusual above H.R. 3803 is that it specifically restricts the District of Columbia's right to self-government.   The proposed rules apply:

"[N]otwithstanding any other provision of law, including any legislation of the District of Columbia under authority delegated by Congress...."

This type of proposed legislation is in some ways characteristic of the current divisive (some say, toxic) atmosphere in Congress.   Legislators pick up emotionally-charged issues, in this case a part of a larger controversy in which the proposed law may be unconstitutional and certainly reflects deep splits in the American people as a whole.   In this case also, a legislator who is an advocate for a more limited role of the Federal government, with the support of others who also consider themselves champions of local authority, believes that Arizona should be determining DC's laws for women's health care.

Regardless of one's views on abortions (and certainly the overwhelming majority in the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, want to prevent late-term abortions), one has to question whether Congress should be picking on DC and enacting such laws on DC's behalf.   Does Congress have better things to do than to use DC as a "lab rat" for policy?   To exploit the people of DC to validate the morality of state representatives?   Should Congress be focused on these divisive battles rather than on legislation that moves the country forward?   

Does this make sense?