iStockphoto/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- The House of Representatives voted Tuesday evening to pass legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks, except in what Democrats assailed as “narrow” cases of incest of a minor, rape, and health of the mother, prompting a partisan debate on the House floor as lawmakers grappled over the question of how soon a fetus is able to detect pain in the womb.

The bill, H.R. 1797 – Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, passed by a vote of 228-196. Six Republicans opposed the measure, while six Democrats crossed the aisle to support it.

Republicans contend that a fetus is capable of detecting pain well before the current cut-off for abortions, at 24 weeks.

“These aren’t just fetuses, science now tells us that they can feel pain. These babies are just like the ones we see in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in hospitals in our area struggling for life, needing love,” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said in support of the bill. “This law will protect children.”

“As a republic founded on the notion of the inherent right to life of every human being, we have an abiding responsibility to ensure that the innocent and most vulnerable are adequately protected from the gravest and most appalling of injustices, especially murder,” Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., added. “That is what today’s legislation seeks to accomplish and I am proud to grant it my complete support.”

Democrats, on the other hand, called the legislation an assault on women’s reproductive rights and an attempt to override the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

“It is unconstitutional, and it is dangerous to the health and safety of American women,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said. “It’s a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade when the Court held that prior to viability, abortions may be banned only if there are meaningful exceptions to protect a woman’s life and health.”

“Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding about basic women’s healthcare, and this bill is just one more example of their continuing attack on women’s rights,” Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., added during debate on the bill. “It is a step backward for women’s health.”

The bill was tweaked after the committee markup to allow exceptions for rape and incest of a minor. Those changes led some of the most conservative Republicans to abandon support for the bill.

“As a medical doctor, I believe it is my duty to protect children at all stages of life,” Rep. Paul Broun, a Senate hopeful who removed himself as a cosponsor of the legislation after the changes were added to the bill, said in opposition to the legislation. “I am extremely disappointed that House Republican leadership chose to include language to subject some unborn children to needless pain and suffering. I will not support legislation that harms innocent children, and I will continue in my efforts to protect all unborn children by making abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy.”

The legislation stands no chance to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the White House had vowed that the president would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

“Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor,” read a statement of administration policy Monday. “The Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make.”

The six Democrats supporting this legislation are Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Dan Lipinski (Illinois), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (North Carolina), Collin Peterson (Minnesota) and Nick Rahall (West Virginia).

The six Republicans opposing the bill are Reps. Paul Broun (Georgia), Charles Dent (Pennsylvania), Rodney Frelinghuysen (New Jersey), Richard Hanna (New York), Jon Runyan (New Jersey) and Rob Woodall (Georgia).

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Win McNamee/Getty Image(WASHINGTON) -- Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill got a more than three-year head start on the 2016 election, lending her support Tuesday to an effort to draw Hillary Clinton into the next presidential race.

McCaskill signed on with the group Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that has emerged as a kind of campaign-in-waiting for the former secretary of state and potential Democratic presidential contender.

“It’s important that we start early, building a grassroots army from the ground up, and effectively using the tools of the Internet — all things that President Obama did so successfully — so that if Hillary does decide to run, we’ll be ready to help her win,” she said in a statement.

Her announcement makes her the first current member of Congress to endorse the draft-Hillary effort, which has been accumulating an impressive list of backers, including Democratic strategist James Carville, longtime Clinton confidant Harold Ickes and former California Rep. Ellen Tauscher.

McCaskill’s early support of the group — and by extension, Clinton — also serves to put some distance between the Missouri senator and her decision to endorse Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential primary.

“I worked my heart out to elect him president,” she acknowledged in a statement posted on the Ready for Hillary website. “Now as I look at 2016 and think about who is best to lead this country forward, I’m proud to announce that I am Ready for Hillary.”

When she endorsed Obama in January 2008, McCaskill called Clinton a “smart woman and a strong leader,” but she said she decided to get behind her Democratic opponent “at the fierce urging of my 18-year-old daughter.”

Even before that, relations between McCaskill and the Clintons were strained after she said during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press in 2006 that she thought Bill Clinton had been “a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

Seven years later, however, her support for Clinton is unmistakable.

“There is nobody better equipped to be our next President than Hillary Clinton,” she said in her statement.

The announcement also signaled a new chapter for the super PAC, which continues to build its team and brand. In late May, Ready for Hillary announced the formation of a National Finance Council and the addition of former White House political director Craig Smith, who served under Bill Clinton, as a senior adviser.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Scott Olson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The Senate on Tuesday rejected a proposal that would have withheld permanent legal status for most undocumented immigrants until the completion of 700 miles of double-layered border fence.

The amendment to the bipartisan immigration reform bill proposed by Republican Sen. John Thune (S.D.) failed by a vote of 39-54. Sixty "yes" votes were needed to pass.

The language also would have prevented most undocumented immigrants from seeking temporary legal status until 350 miles of that fencing was built.

The amendment's defeat represents another setback for conservative lawmakers who say that the Gang of Eight bill doesn't go far enough to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

But it's a victory for sponsors of the bill in both parties. They say their bill contains the strongest border protection measures in American history.

Members of the Gang of Eight, which authored the bill, have said that several GOP amendments go too far in making the path to citizenship conditional on sweeping border security projects.

The Senate bill already contains so-called "triggers" that must be met before legalized immigrants can obtain green cards that grant them permanent status. Under the existing bill, $1.5 billion is allocated toward a fencing strategy for the Southern border that includes construction of double-layered fencing in some areas and monitoring technology elsewhere. The plan must be "substantially completed" before legalized immigrants can acquire green cards.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an author of the bill, urged senators to vote no on the Thune fence amendment.

"Fencing is important," he said on Tuesday. "Surveillance is more important."

Supporters of the border fence effort note that Congress required the completion of 700 miles of fencing in 2006. But Congress altered the law the next year to give the federal government discretion over what types of barriers were necessary to construct in different areas. Close to 350 miles of fencing currently stands along the U.S.-Mexico border, while 299 miles is covered by vehicle barriers.

Senators also voted down an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would require a full biometric visa tracking system to be put in place at every land, sea and air port of entry in the U.S. before legalized immigrants could get green cards.

The Gang of Eight bill requires that all non-U.S. citizens be fingerprinted when leaving the country through the nation's 30 busiest airports. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a Republican author of the bill, previously called a full biometric program too costly.

The Senate unanimously adopted a technical amendment related to international adoptees proposed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). It also passed an amendment from Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) that would include Native American tribal officials on a border security advisory panel.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Image(WASHINGTON) -- At what age do young boys begin sexual self-exploration? As early as 15 weeks in utero, according to Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former obstetrician-gynecologist. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”

The Tea Party congressman, 62, made the argument during a House Rules Committee hearing Tuesday about H.R. bill 1797, which would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Burgess, who says that fetal movements can point to pleasurable sexual sensation, argues that abortion should be limited to the first 15 weeks, rather than the proposed 20.

Dr. Lisa Perriera of University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland counters that a fetus’ hand between its legs is nothing more than “practicing using their muscles.”

“Three studies have been done in human fetuses to examine the development of connections between nerves,” Perriera said. “And we don’t think those connections start to form until somewhere between 23 and 30 weeks gestation.”

The congressman’s statement also raises the question of why female fetuses’ hands apparently stay above the belt, and Dr. Perriera believes she has an explanation.

“It’s all boiling down to males again,” she said, “while this legislation is targeting women and limiting women’s rights.”

Burgess’ remarks come a week after Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., made clumsy comments about the frequency of pregnancy from rape.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The fate of immigration reform hinges on how House Speaker John Boehner handles the issue. And on Tuesday, he laid down a significant marker on how the House will move forward.

Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated it is highly unlikely that he will bring a bill to the floor that does not have the support of a majority of House Republicans, who are generally opposed to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The Speaker has come under heavy pressure from conservatives to not rely on Democrats to push an immigration bill through the House.

"I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have the majority support of Republicans," Boehner told reporters at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Until now, Boehner has been coy about whether he would allow a vote on an immigration bill without the support of a majority of Republicans. As early as last week, when asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if he would permit that to happen, the Speaker said, "We're going to let the House work its will."

There's evidence that such demure statements have irritated some in the GOP rank-and-file.

According to Roll Call, a group of House Republicans have pushed leaders to codify what's known as the "Hastert Rule" -- the guideline generally followed by Republican speakers to only let bills with a majority of GOP support to come to the floor.

Other members have made more blatant threats against Boehner. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca.) told a conservative radio program on Tuesday that he "should be removed as Speaker" if he permits a vote on a bill that's not backed by most GOPers.

Boehner deadpanned "maybe" when asked if he would lose his job if he brings the Senate immigration bill, which includes a path to citizenship, to the floor. He called the Senate bill "weak" when it comes to border security and interior enforcement.

House Republicans aren't Boehner's only concern. He's also being forced to balance the desires of national Republicans who see GOP cooperation on immigration as a first step to winning over Latino and Asian-American voters. On Wednesday, Boehner will meet with members of the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, according to Politico. That group has long pushed leaders to pass immigration reform with a path to citizenship.

Meanwhile, the House is considering a dual track to immigration reform.

A bipartisan group of seven lawmakers is soon expected to release a comprehensive bill that contains legalization for undocumented immigrants. But the House Judiciary Committee is taking a "piecemeal" approach. This week, they are looking at a tough enforcement bill that's considered a non-starter by Democrats and immigrant-rights groups.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- President Obama said that two National Security Agency programs recently revealed through leaked secret documents were “transparent” and, in an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose on Sunday, he dismissed concerns that the programs were vulnerable to abuse by government officials.

“It is transparent,” Obama said in the interview, broadcast Monday night.

“What I’ve asked the intelligence community to do is see how much of this we can declassify without further compromising the program, No. 1,” Obama said. “And they are in that process of doing so now so that everything that I’m describing to you today, people, the public, newspapers, etc., can look at – because, frankly, if people are making judgments just based on these slides that have been leaked, they’re not getting the complete story.”

Obama said that he will meet with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a five-member independent agency that advises the president and Congress on privacy and civil liberties concerns, to “structure a national conversation” about the programs. That meeting will take place in the coming days, according to an administration official, and will be part of a broader outreach to national security, civil liberties and technology stakeholders.

When asked whether he believed admitted NSA leaker Edward Snowden should be prosecuted, Obama declined to comment, but he said that the case has been referred to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation and “possible extradition.”

In response to criticism that he has adopted Bush administration policies wholesale, Obama dismissed a suggestion that as a U.S. senator he was opposed to intelligence gathering.

“Some people say, ‘Well, you know, Obama was this raving liberal before.  Now he’s, you know, Dick Cheney,’” Obama said. “My concern has always been not that we shouldn’t do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism, but rather: Are we setting up a system of checks and balances?”

He offered a strenuous defense of the NSA programs, which he said guard the privacy of Americans through judicial and legislative review.

“What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails…and have not,” he said.

The first program, called the 2015 program, authorizes the government to collect telephone metadata about phone numbers and lengths of telephone calls.

“There are no names.  There is no content in that database.  All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place – so that database is sitting there,” Obama said, adding that the FBI must seek legal authority through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court in order to search the database.

A second program used to gather information from Internet service providers, called the “702 program,” cannot be used against a “U.S. person,” Obama said.

“The one thing people should understand about all these programs, though, is they have disrupted plots, not just here in the United States but overseas, as well,” Obama said

He referenced a foiled plot to blow up the New York subway system that he said may have been uncovered with the help of the programs.

“We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place, that they have enough information about how we operate that they know that their phone calls aren’t being listened into; their text messages aren’t being monitored, their emails are not being read by some big brother somewhere,” Obama said. “They’ve got to feel that confidence and that it is not potentially subject to abuse, because there are sufficient checks and balances on it while still preserving our capacity to act against folks who are trying to do us harm.”

Obama also declined to go into more detail about what additional assistance the U.S. government would provide to Syrian rebels after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was found to have crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons against its people.

The president suggested that a no-fly zone would be ineffective.

“This argument that somehow, [if] we had gone in earlier or heavier, in some fashion, that the tragedy and chaos taking place in Syria wouldn’t be taking place, I think is wrong,” Obama said. “What I’m saying is that if you haven’t been in the Situation Room poring through intelligence and meeting directly with our military folks and asking, ‘What are all our options?’ and examining what are all the consequences, and understanding that, for example, if you set up a no-fly zone that you may not be actually solving the problem on the zone.”

Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

iStockphoto/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections.

Arizona’s Proposition 200 was passed in 2004 and requires any registrant who does not have a driver’s license issued after 1996 or a non-operating license to provide documents such as a copy of a birth certificate or a passport. The law went further than a federal law that established a nationally uniform voter application form where the registrant is required to check a box indicating U.S. citizenship and to sign the form under penalty of perjury.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a 7-2 majority, said Monday that the state law conflicted with the federal law, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) which is sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter law. The NVRA was enacted in 1993 to establish uniform procedures to vote in federal elections.

Scalia said that a state imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship that is not required by the federal form is “inconsistent” with the NVRA’s mandate that States accept and use the federal form.

Scalia said, “No matter what procedural hurdles a State’s own form imposes, the federal form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.”

He said if Arizona were to prevail, the federal form would cease to perform “any meaningful function” and would be a “feeble means” of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.

“The Court affirmed Congress’ decision to use a single federal form to help streamline the voter registration process, and prevent states like Arizona from denying the right of citizens to register to vote in federal elections,” said David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a group opposed to the Arizona law. “At a time when states are engaged in voter suppression efforts, today’s opinion is an important reaffirmation that the text and history of the Elections Clause give the federal government broad power to preempt state law in order to protect the right to vote in federal elections.”

Arizona’s law had been challenged by groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) who argued that Proposition 200 put additional burdens on voters.

At oral arguments, Patricia A. Millet, a lawyer for the challengers of the law said that Congress designed the federal form to confront a situation in which “40 percent of eligible voters were not registered, because State procedures and burdens were standing as an obstacle, a barrier in the direct line of accountability between individual citizens and their Federal Government.”

But Thomas C. Horne, Arizona’s Attorney General, argued in court that the state law complemented the federal law and is necessary to protect the integrity of the system. He said there is nothing in the NVRA that says the state can’t ask for additional information. “Congress could have said the form is exclusive and you can’t ask for anything else,” Horne told the justices.

Horne said the federal requirement to check a box is “extremely inadequate...It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”

A lower court struck down the law. “We recognize Arizona’s concern about fraudulent registration,” the majority wrote in 2011, “Nevertheless, the Elections Clause gives Congress the last word on how this concern will be addressed in the context of federal elections.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio