Coalition letter urging Congress to revive the 20-week ban

PL-2015-001 · April 23, 2015

Explicit incrementalist endorsement Secondary coverage only Coalition letter 6 / 12

Explicit incrementalist endorsement. Explicitly endorses a regulatory/gestational bill or exceptions as policy.

Shortfall type
Explicit incrementalist endorsement
Date
April 23, 2015
Lead organization
Pro-life coalition
Recipient
U.S. Congress
Topic
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Type
Coalition letter
Verification
Secondary coverage only
Signature rows
None recovered
Completeness
Signature block not recovered

§ 1 Key language

“urged Congress to revive the federal 20-week measure” Pro-life coalition, April 23, 2015

§ 2 Scorecard

Composite 6 of 12 — explicit incrementalist endorsement. Each dimension is scored 0 (none), 1 (implied) or 2 (explicit); the rationale column is the editor's one-line reason for every non-zero score.

DimensionScoreMeaning at this scoreRationale
D1 Exceptions 2 Explicitly supports rape, incest or health exceptions Bill contains 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.
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 framing.

§ 3 Signatories

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

§ 4 Sources

Only press coverage located.

freebeacon.comhttps://freebeacon.com/
Secondary coverage only

§ 5 Notes

Original letter 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; a disagreement is a disagreement with the rubric's conventions, not with an individual cell.