Where Does Chris Smith Stand on Total Abortion Bans?

SB8, the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks, has sparked protest around the country. The law is an unacceptable infringement on reproductive rights, and outrage at the law is further enflamed by its lack of an exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

In response, House Democrats passed the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would guarantee access to abortions before the age of fetal viability or anytime the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother.

It is no surprise that Chris Smith, R NJ-4, voted against the WHPA. He is a lifelong opponent of reproductive rights and co-chair of the Congressional “Pro-Life” Caucus. Voters are well aware of Smith’s position on abortion, and conventional wisdom is that there are some who disagree but are willing to support him nontheless because of more moderate aspects to his record.

This may be true, and while polling shows that abortion access is supported in New Jersey that doesn’t mean voter’s opinions are without nuance. However, it is extremely unlikely that New Jersey voters believe in forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s child as SB8 does. But Smith has supported abortion bans without exceptions for rape or incest in the past, and with ever-increasing threats to reproductive rights, it is crucial that voters know exactly where he stands now.

The Hyde amendment bans federal funding for abortions, and Smith has voted to reauthorize it several times while it included exceptions for rape and incest. But he has also said of pregnancies resulting from rape that “those children, too, should be protected.” Early in his career, Smith introduced two amendments in the House that would have banned all federal funding for abortion without exceptions. And more recently, Smith tried to establish “forcible rape” as a threshold for receiving federal funds for an abortion, meaning that if a surivor wasn’t beaten or was a minor in an instance of statutory rape, she would have to carry her rapist’s child if she couldn’t pay for an abortion herself.

Further obscuring the picture of where Smith stands is his complete silence in the wake of Texas’ SB8 as well as other no-exceptions abortion bans that passed statehouses but stalled in courts during 2019. Smith, a prominent figure in the “pro-life” movement, is neither flouting these as proof that his long-sought victory is near nor attempting to moderate the movement and distance himself from the “carry your rapist’s child” crowd.

Smith is never silent however about his Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and for good reason. It’s an admirable law unquestionably making the world a better place. But what would become of a sex trafficking victim in Texas who only manages to escape after the sixth week of pregnancy? Must this rape survivor now carry the pregnancy from an assault? Why isn’t Smith, a legislative leader in the “pro-life” and anti-trafficking arenas using his clout to temper the most extreme elements of his party and advocate for these women?

To be fair, no one has asked him, but that’s because no one can. Smith hasn’t held a town hall in thirty years. Voters know where Smith stands on abortion generally, but they should know if he supports forcing a rape survivor to carry her rapist’s child as SB8, other legislation, or a complete reversal of Roe would do. The record is far from clear, and someone in the New Jersey press must ask him.

We cannot settle for an answer about past support for rape exceptions in the Hyde amendment, because Smith has been on both sides of this issue. We need to know what Smith will do now. With ongoing legal challenges and legislation, abortion access - even for rape survivors and the trafficking victims Smith endeavors to protect - is under threat. Will Smith speak out against forcing a rape survivor to carry her rapist’s child? Will he author legislation to protect rape survivors and trafficking victims from this cruelty? Or through his silence, is he hoping to get what he always wanted?