Split within Democratic Party, erosion of Catholic Church influence, and the changing face of the U.S. Supreme Court are among the reasons cited by political pundits.

PROVIDENCE — "Lordy, lordy, lordy, honey."

Last Thursday night at the Rhode Island State House, deeply-held religious beliefs collided with the anger and fervor of women's rights activists in the Trump era; the dominant church in Rhode Island waged — and lost — a holy war against "the sin'' of abortion; and a House Speaker who promised to be "the firewall" against "ultra-left wing groups" felt compelled to let colleagues vote, for the first time in a quarter-century, on an abortion-rights bill.

"It’s our bodies. It’s our choice," insisted Rep. Carol Hagan McEntee, D-South Kingstown, a Catholic-raised mother of four, including an infant who died of complications from birth defects after a year-long medical nightmare.

"They call it a 'procedure.' I call it murder,'' asserted Rep. James McLaughlin, framed picture of Christ-and-child in hand.

At the point, the lead sponsor, Rep. Anastasia Williams — a black woman from Providence and mother of five — uttered her memorable "Lordy, lordy, lordy, honey'' lament at the attempts of GOP lawmakers to include a ban on third-trimester abortions to relieve mental "anguish" over the sex, sexual preference and race of the fetus, the outcome was inevitable.

The final 44-to-30 vote for the bill to protect the legality of abortion in Rhode Island exposed the deep split within the Rhode Island Democratic Party that holds every seat in the state's congressional delegation, every statewide office, and an overwhelming majority of seats in the state's 75-member House of Representatives and 38-member Senate.

Why is Rhode Island seeing movement on abortion-rights legislation for the first time in a quarter-century?

Many thoughts, many theories, including the most basic: the political math.

Republicans were 8-to-1 against the legislation, but 21 of the 26 women in the House voted for the bill. Forty-three of the 65 Democrats in the room (66 percent) voted for the bill. Only 22 did not.

House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello told reporters: "Every issue has its time and its day and for the House, this session, this was its time and day based on the overwhelming majority opinion in the room. It passed pretty readily. We tried to respect the will of the majority." (An hour later, the Rhode Island Right-to-Life PAC announced it was revoking its 2018 endorsement of the speaker, even though he voted against the bill.)

Rep. Christopher Blazejewski — a lawyer, co-sponsor and key negotiator between the behind-the-scene players — attributes the speaker's willingness to allow a vote, in part, to the poll conducted last fall for The Journal, ABC6 and The Public's Radio that showed 71 percent of Rhode Islanders want to protect the legality of abortion in Rhode Island. Other views:

"By even giving this bill a hearing, much less bringing it to the House floor, Speaker Mattiello is acknowledging the changing dynamics on abortion both inside the Democratic Party in Rhode Island but the state more generally," says Brown University Prof. Wendy Schiller.

"He is a powerful Speaker but party leaders ... only stay powerful if their party stays united and on the same page on policy. Ask Nancy Pelosi who is struggling to keep her troops in line in the U.S. House,'' says Schiller. "This bill was a key issue that many Progressives in the party campaigned on and it is possible that other members of the party who have been so far immune to primary challenges might face them next time around if they [didn't] give this bill its day on the House floor."

Steven Frias, the Republican National Committeeman for Rhode Island — and two-time Mattiello challenger — attributes the movement, in part, to the changing face of the U.S. Supreme Court, but also to: "The split among House Democrats which weakened the control of House Speaker; the polarization of the two parties over abortion, first at the national level and subsequently at the state level, and the potential erosion in the moral influence of the Roman Catholic Church due to the child sex-abuse scandals."

"In the past, the Roman Catholic Church has acted as a moral bulwark against the advance of abortion legislation ... Today, when Bishop Thomas Tobin goes on Twitter to advocate for a pro-life position, he is routinely attacked for the Catholic Church’s role in covering up the child sex abuse... The church’s failure in the past to properly protect children from pedophile priests has undermined its ability to advocate for the protection of unborn children today,'' Frias says.

Then there's this: "Of the 19 Democrats who refused the vote for Mattiello to be Speaker, 18 of them voted for the abortion legislation. Just as important was the fact that Mattiello received 12 votes from Democrats endorsed by Planned Parenthood, Democrats like Chris Blazejewski.

"Without the votes of these 12 [Planned Parenthood] endorsed Democrats, Mattiello would not have been elected Speaker since he only received 47 votes,'' Frias notes. "Also, Mattiello needs 50 votes to pass a budget in its entirety. This also gave pro-choice Democrats leverage over Mattiello to get a vote on the House floor on abortion. Mattiello allowed this vote on abortion to occur in order to maintain control of the House and possibly to heal divisions among House Democrats."

Joe Cammarano, a political science professor at the Catholic, Dominican-run Providence College, traces what happened here to President Trump's appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court and the fragile health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an octogenarian cancer survivor. His observations:

"That pressure may have been building in Rhode Island, but the actual triggering events can be understood with three names: [Neil] Gorsuch, [Brett] Kavanaugh, and Ginsburg (and yes, given his role, [President] Trump)."

"States controlled by Republicans have moved towards tightening access to abortion, something that has been occurring since the 1980s, but has also been restrained by Roe and subsequent Supreme Court decisions."

"What is new is the urgency felt by other side of the political divide: abortion-rights advocates ... now that it looks like they could soon lose the rights granted in the Roe decision."

"For years I have been warning my pro-life colleagues (two of my colleagues are board members on the R.I. Right To Life Committee) that they should be wary of getting rid of Roe as precedent, since that does not mean banning abortion, but simply means throwing the entire issue back to states to decide ... Now that that is almost arrived, states like Rhode Island are moving toward a more solid support of abortion rights than existed under the Roe precedent,'' notes Cammarano.

"This is a classic case of political equilibrium: each political action on abortion from one side leads to reaction from the other side. When there is settled law, like with Roe, the issue was fairly dormant. Now, with the conservative push on the issue, the liberal side has awakened and is pushing back hard."

Agreeing on much of what Cammarano said, Lisa Pelosi — the one-time communications director to Republican Gov. Lincoln Almond — said the driving forces are "both national and local. Nationally, we have seen the U.S. Supreme Court tilt toward conservative with the addition of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during the past two years that Donald Trump has been President. As a result, people are watching whether the Supreme Court will take a case that could potentially overturn Roe v Wade.

"Because of fear of that happening, we are seeing a major push to codify Roe v. Wade here in Rhode Island."

"I remember long ago going to Governor Almond (I think it was 2001) saying we needed to take a position on a pending abortion bill. He counseled me that we did not have to take a position immediately, that if the issue came to his desk (approved by both the House and Senate) then the people of Rhode Island had spoken."

"That is what I am watching for."

On to the Senate

All eyes now turn to the Senate where, back in 1993, the last abortion-rights bill to pass the House died.

Could it happen again? Sen. Gayle Goldin, lead Senate sponsor of the bill, doesn't think so.

"I have the votes on the Senate floor," Goldin said Friday.

Since last Tuesday's marathon, break-of-dawn hearing on Goldin's matching bill, Senate leaders have been quiet on when or if the legislation will emerge from the Judiciary Committee.

But Goldin said she is confident Judiciary Chairwoman Erin Lynch Prata's support for the bill — she's a co-sponsor — will see it through.

Goldin's bill at one point had 18 co-sponsors, but Sen. James Sheehan, D-North Kingstown, took his name off it shortly after signing, bringing the total down to 17, three lawmakers short of a majority.

"I wanted to make sure I understood the bill, its nuances and make sure I see how it might change, as it did," Sheehan said Friday about why he took his name off it.

"In all likelihood yes," he said on whether he expects to support the bill if it makes it to the Senate floor. "I support the general codification of Roe, I just had a couple of questions about the bill."