NEWS
National
Politics
Washington
World
Science / Technology
AP News Wire
AP US News Wire
AP Politics
AP World
AP Mideast Wire
AP State Wire Feed

• Obituaries
• Anniversaries
• Weddings
• Engagements
• Birthdays
• Miscellaneous
• Memorials
• Submit your announcement

• TRNRecipes.com
• How Now Joe Brown
•  Lake Levels
•  H.S. Reunions
• TX Lottery Results
•  Police Scanner
• Universal Crossword

•  BlueBonnet Drive

Grad Tab
•Life & Health Insurance
•Possum Kingdom
•Senior Living 2003
•Severe Weather Guide 2003
•Falls Facts 2003
•Progress 2003
•Medical Directory
•Visitor's Guide
•Bridal Guide 2003


Congress passes abortion bill

By MICHAEL COLLINS
June 4, 2003

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)

 
 

Classifieds
Autos
Jobs
Travel

Site Extras

2003© The E.W. Scripps Co.
All Users of this site are subject to our Privacy Policy and User Agreement.
Questions or Comments? Email us at webmaster@wtr.com