Eds: Updates with House vote
After years of battling, abortion opponents are close to
succeeding in their fight to outlaw "partial birth" abortion.
The House voted 282-139 on Wednesday to ban the
controversial procedure. The bill already has cleared the
Senate, and President Bush has promised to sign it into law.
Abortion-rights supporters already are preparing to
challenge the ban in court.
"The politicians who voted to pass this ban on safe
abortion procedures made it clear that winning political
points was more important than safeguarding the health of
American women,'' said Vicki Saporta, president and chief
executive officer of the National Abortion Federation, which
plans to seek a court injunction to prevent the ban from
taking effect.
If the bill becomes law, it would mark the first time that
the federal government has banned a specific abortion
procedure, abortion-rights advocates say. Congress voted in
1996 and 1997 to ban "partial birth" abortion, but
then-President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill both times.
Thirty-one states also have tried to outlaw the procedure.
But the U.S. Supreme Court set back those efforts when it
ruled three years ago that a ban enacted by Nebraska violated
the constitution because it was too vague and failed to exempt
abortions that are necessary to protect a woman's health.
Only four state bans - Georgia, Kansas, New Mexico and Utah
- meet the requirements that the Supreme Court laid out in
that case and can be enforced, according to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit group that does research on
sexual and reproductive health.
Opponents say the latest version of the federal ban is
riddled with the same problems as the Nebraska law. They
contend it is so vague that it would outlaw many safe and
common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy.
But supporters of a ban say they are confident the latest
bill addresses the court's concerns and that the legislation
could withstand a legal challenge.
The definition of "partial birth" abortion has been
narrowed, said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who is leading the
effort in the House.
A woman would not be prohibited from having the procedure
if her life is in jeopardy, but the bill still doesn't exempt
abortions that a doctor says are necessary to protect a
woman's health.
Chabot said the bill gets around that problem by including
several findings of fact that show the procedure is never
medically necessary.
"This is one type of abortion that should not be permitted
in a civilized society,'' Chabot said. "It is barbaric. It is
inhumane. It is gruesome and just not ought to be allowed.''
"Partial birth" abortion is not a medical term, but one
that opponents have given to a procedure in which a fetus is
partially delivered before it is aborted.
"Partial birth" abortion is actually a misnomer, said John
C. Willke, a Cincinnati physician who was one of the founders
of the National Right to Life movement.
"What you have got here is infanticide,'' said Willke,
president of Life Issues Institute, a think tank. "This is not
really an abortion. It has nothing to do with a baby who is
abnormal. It has everything to do with a mother who wants her
kid dead. And this is a total and continuing outrage.''
Under the proposed ban, a woman who has a "partial birth"
abortion would not be prosecuted, but a doctor who performs
the procedure could face two years in prison.
Opponents say that improperly impedes on the doctor-patient
relationship and is a blatant attempt to intimidate doctors
from performing abortions for women who need them.
"No politician, no governmental body should be telling a
doctor what procedure under what circumstance is or is not
allowed,'' said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice
America. "A doctor should be using his or her medical judgment
to be determining what a woman needs or doesn't need.''
Differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill
must be worked out before the legislation goes to the
president's desk.
The ban is scheduled to take effect the day after Bush
signs it into law, giving opponents a narrow window to block
its implementation. But opponents say they will be ready to
file suit.
"This bill is far too dangerous to women's health to sit by
and do nothing,'' said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service,
http://www.shns.com)
