---
title: "NRLC letters to Congress supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (20-week ban)"
description: "Single-organization letter from National Right to Life Committee, November 1, 2013, to U.S. Senate / House. Composite 6/12 — explicit incrementalist endorsement. “top congressional priority”"
type: "letter"
letter_id: "PL-2013-001"
date: "2013-11-01"
letter_type: "Single-organization letter"
lead_org: "National Right to Life Committee"
recipient: "U.S. Senate / House"
topic: "Pain-capable (20-week) legislation"
shortfall_type: "incrementalist_endorsement_explicit"
composite: 6
verification: "primary"
signature_rows: 1
primary_url: "https://nrlc.org/communications/releases/2013/release110113/"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/letters/pl-2013-001.html"
---

# NRLC letters to Congress supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (20-week ban)

**Single-organization letter** · November 1, 2013 · Explicit incrementalist endorsement · composite 6 / 12 · Primary source

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Letter ID | PL-2013-001 (formerly L11) |
| Date | November 1, 2013 |
| Lead organization | [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) |
| Recipient | U.S. Senate / House |
| Topic | Pain-capable (20-week) legislation |
| Type | Single-organization letter |
| Verification | Primary source |
| Signature rows | 1 |
| Completeness | Single organization |

## Key language

> “top congressional priority” — National Right to Life Committee, November 1, 2013

## 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 | 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 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 | Fetal-pain/secular framing. |

## Spokesperson

1 signature row · **Single organization.** A single-organization record; the spokesperson row is illustrative, not a signature block.

| # | Name as printed | Title as printed | Organization as printed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | — | — | [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) |

## Organizations on this letter

1 distinct organization, after normalizing renamed and affiliated entities.

- [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) — Right-to-life group

## Sources

- [nrlc.org/communications/rele…](https://nrlc.org/communications/releases/2013/release110113/) — Primary source (https://nrlc.org/communications/releases/2013/release110113/)
- [nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpain/nrlctosenatepcucpa](https://nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpain/nrlctosenatepcucpa/) — secondary (https://nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpain/nrlctosenatepcucpa/)

## Notes

Series: reintroduced 2015, 2017, 2021.

## 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. Scores are judgment calls applied consistently by the published rubric.