|
House Bans an Abortion Method
By ROBIN TONER, NYTimes on the Web, June 5, 2003
WASHINGTON, June 4 — The House overwhelmingly approved legislation
tonight to outlaw what abortion opponents call partial birth abortion, putting
the anti-abortion movement on the brink of a major victory.
While differences must still be ironed out with the Senate, which passed the
bill in March, both sides agree that the legislation will soon be headed to
President Bush, who has repeatedly promised to sign it.
Today's 282-to-139 vote comes after eight years of struggle. Congress twice
passed similar bills in the Clinton administration, but President Clinton vetoed
each one. The Supreme Court dealt the anti-abortion movement another serious
blow on the same issue three years ago, ruling that several similar state bans
on the abortion procedure were unconstitutional.
But this year, anti-abortion leaders found themselves with Republican allies
in control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and moved quickly to
pass such a ban again.
"We have lived in denial of the violence of abortion for far too long," said
Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey. "Today, we can
stop some of this violence against children."
The Bush administration declared today that the ban was "both morally
imperative and constitutionally permissible."
The measure applies to a type of abortion used to terminate pregnancies in
the second and third trimester. The procedure, which is medically known as
intact dilation and extraction, is rarely used, according to the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a
nonprofit research group.
Abortion opponents contend that the procedure typically involves delivering
the lower part of the fetus's body, puncturing and collapsing its head while
still inside the woman's body, and the delivery of a dead, but largely intact
fetus. They call the procedure barbaric.
Supporters of abortion rights counter that the procedure is so ill-defined
that the proposed law could end up criminalizing many kinds of abortions that
are medically necessary.
Several abortion rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation
of America, the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties
Union Reproductive Freedom Project, said they would immediately file suit to
block the legislation once the president signed it.
They asserted it infringed on a woman's right to choose an abortion, under
the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and was just as unconstitutional as
the state ban rejected by the Supreme Court three years ago.
Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "This is a
broad, unconstitutional bill that sacrifices women's health and future fertility
on the altar of extreme right-wing ideology."
But Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life
Committee, said, "Two-thirds of Congress, 70 percent of the public and four
Supreme Court Justices say there is no constitutional right to deliver most of a
living baby and then puncture her head with a scissors."
"We hope that by the time this ban reaches the Supreme Court, at least five
justices will be willing to reject such extremism," Mr. Johnson said.
The vote today underscored the new clout of the anti-abortion movement, and
it came at a time of rising political anxiety as both sides prepare for the
possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy this summer.
Today's outcome was widely expected, but the debate still had moments of
intense emotion. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida,
called the procedure "gruesome and "a grave attack against human dignity and
justice."
On the other side, Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York,
declared: "The Congress of the United States has never — ever — outlawed a
medical procedure. What in the name of God are we doing here? And what is next?"
Abortion rights groups and many doctors assert that the legislation passed
tonight could affect several procedures that are sometimes necessary to preserve
the health and fertility of the woman.
They also said such procedures were sometimes a wrenchingly painful choice
for a woman who wants to carry a pregnancy to term but discovers that her fetus
has severe abnormalities.
"As terrible as it may be to imagine, things can go wrong in the later stages
of a pregnancy," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California.
But opponents of abortion argued that most of this type of abortions were
performed to end healthy pregnancies in healthy mothers. Representative Steve
Chabot, Republican of Ohio and the chief sponsor of the ban, described the
procedure as "truly a national tragedy," and argued that it was "never embraced
by the mainstream medical community."
The measure was opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, which said that doctors and patients, not legislators, "are the
appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment."
It was also opposed by the American Medical Association, which said it did
not support the use of the procedure at issue but had a "long-standing policy
opposing legislation that would criminalize medical practice or procedure."
Under the bill, doctors who performed such abortions would be subject to
fines and up to two years imprisonment.
The measure was supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
and many social conservative groups like the Family Research Council.
Tonight's vote on final passage came after an amendment was defeated that
would have outlawed abortions after viability unless necessary to avert "serious
adverse health consequences" to the woman. The vote was 133 to 287. Opponents of
abortion said it would have opened a huge loophole in the law.
The House overwhelmingly passed a similar abortion ban last year, but the
Senate, then under Democratic control, never brought it to the floor for a vote.
When Democrats lost their Senate majority last fall, the last political
impediment to the abortion ban's becoming law was removed.
Three months ago, the Senate, under new Republican leadership, passed the ban
by a vote of 64 to 33. The Senate, however, also approved a nonbinding
resolution expressing support for Roe v. Wade, which is not in the House version
passed tonight.
Abortion rights groups said they were confident that the bill passed tonight
would fail to meet the standards set out by the Supreme Court. In that 5-to-4
decision, the court ruled that a similar state ban was unconstitutional because
it was too vague and failed to include an exception to allow the procedure if it
was deemed necessary to protect the health of the woman.
But the sponsors of the ban said they had tried to address the court's
concerns and defined the procedure more narrowly. The law defines it as the
partial delivery of a living fetus, "until, in the case of a head-first
presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is
outside the body of the mother;" followed by the performance of "an overt act,
other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living
fetus."
Opponents of abortion have long resisted adding a "health exception," arguing
it would become a huge loophole allowing such abortions for vague reasons of
mental health. They asserted that the new bill answers the Supreme Court's
objections by making a legislative finding that such abortions are never
medically necessary.
The opponents also argue that the issue of this type of abortion highlights
the extremism of the Supreme Court's view of abortion rights, one that they say
is far out of step with the views of most Americans.
Groups opposing the proposed ban argue that it is just the first stage in a
steady assault on abortion rights
Submitted by:
Messrs. John Crowell Campbell & Richard John Harrison, Co-Founders &
Sponsors of Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Group (GayPASG@att.net), & the Task Force for Same-Sex Marriage.
Visit www.gaypasg.org for mission statements. Edward G. Martone, Political
Advisor |
