---
title: "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act coalition letter (CMDA-indexed)"
description: "Coalition letter from Pro-life coalition, 2011, to U.S. policymakers. Composite 6/12 — explicit incrementalist endorsement. “supported pain-capable unborn child protection legislation”"
type: "letter"
letter_id: "PL-2011-001"
date: "2011"
letter_type: "Coalition letter"
lead_org: "Pro-life coalition"
recipient: "U.S. policymakers"
topic: "Pain-capable (20-week) legislation"
shortfall_type: "incrementalist_endorsement_explicit"
composite: 6
verification: "secondary"
signature_rows: 0
primary_url: "https://resources.cmda.org/"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/letters/pl-2011-001.html"
---

# Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act coalition letter (CMDA-indexed)

**Coalition letter** · 2011 · Explicit incrementalist endorsement · composite 6 / 12 · Secondary coverage only

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Letter ID | PL-2011-001 |
| Date | 2011 |
| Lead organization | Pro-life coalition |
| Recipient | U.S. policymakers |
| Topic | Pain-capable (20-week) legislation |
| Type | Coalition letter |
| Verification | Secondary coverage only |
| Signature rows | None recovered |
| Completeness | Signature block not recovered |

## Key language

> “supported pain-capable unborn child protection legislation” — Pro-life coalition, 2011

## Scorecard

Composite **6 of 12** — explicit incrementalist endorsement. Each dimension is scored 0 (none), 1 (implied) or 2 (explicit); the rationale is the editor's one-line reason for every non-zero score. D2 and D4 are the fault line the abolitionist critique cares most about.

| Dimension | Score | Meaning at this score | Rationale |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| D1 Exceptions | 2 | Explicitly supports rape, incest or health exceptions | The bill contains rape/incest/life exceptions. |
| D2 Immunity for the mother (fault line) | 0 | None | — |
| D3 Incrementalism | 2 | Explicitly endorses a regulatory or gestational bill instead of abolition | Gestational-limit regulation rather than abolition. |
| D4 Opposition to abolition or equal-protection bills (fault line) | 0 | None | — |
| D5 Framing | 0 | None | — |
| D6 Secular framing | 2 | Wholly secular, legal, fiscal, medical or political argument | Secular fetal-pain framing. |

## Signatories

**Signature block not recovered.** A letter record exists but the signature block was not located; no signature rows.

## Sources

- [resources.cmda.org](https://resources.cmda.org/) — Secondary coverage only (https://resources.cmda.org/)

## Notes

Attachment not recovered.

## Editorial note

The rubric records distance from the standard published by Abolitionists Rising, not a moral verdict; every organization scored here regards itself as pro-life. This record is verified from secondary coverage only: the primary text has not yet been located, and its scores rest on language quoted in press coverage. Scores are judgment calls applied consistently by the published rubric.