Posted on 06/07/2003 9:54:41 PM PDT by LdSentinal
U.S. Rep. Jeb Bradley voted for legislation this week that bans so-called partial-birth abortions except in cases where the mother's life is at risk. But Bradley, a first-term Republican who represents New Hampshire's first district, campaigned as a strongly pro-choice candidate. He even supported a woman's access to an abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy if her health or life is at risk.
"I am the only candidate in this race with a solid 12-year voting record supporting a woman's right to choose as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment," Bradley wrote in a September 2002 letter to voters. "I strongly believe that every woman has a constitutional right to privacy with respect to family planning, including deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In the tragic circumstances where a woman's life and health is at risk during the last trimester of pregnancy, I support the current law, which provides health and life exceptions for the mother. I have voted this way in the New Hampshire Legislature and I will vote the same way in Washington, D.C."
Choice advocates said yesterday that they were surprised Bradley voted for the partial-birth abortion ban. They said he made no indication during his campaign that he would support one, especially one with such a narrow health exception for the mother.
"It is clear that Representative Bradley has turned his back on his pro-choice values," said Laura Thibault, executive director of NARAL-NH. "His pledge to respect women's health as part of his campaign platform was clearly a hollow promise."
But Bradley said yesterday that his vote is consistent with his campaign position and the comments he made in that September 2002 letter. He also said that a person can be pro-choice and against partial-birth abortion.
"I absolutely am still a pro-choice member of Congress," Bradley said in a phone interview. ". . . I always indicated that I would support a ban on late-term partial-birth abortions."
Not so, according to a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that Bradley filled out and submitted to the group during his campaign. In it, Planned Parenthood asks the question: "Anti-choice organizations have tried to erode the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision (which ensures a woman's constitutionally-protected right to choose) by trying to ban specific abortion procedures. The Supreme Court found that such attempts to ban the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure were unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart. Do you support a woman's right to choose the abortion method she and her physician deem most appropriate to her individual needs?"
Bradley checked a box indicating his support.
Jennifer Frizzell, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said that a vote for a partial-birth abortion ban, especially one that does not provide a full health exception for the mother, directly violates the tenants of Roe v. Wade. She also said that Bradley, who has been a leader in Planned Parenthood's Republicans for Choice movement, made no indication during the campaign that he'd back a ban with such a narrow health exception.
"It's inconsistent to vote for this legislation and to also profess to support Roe v. Wade because one of the cornerstone components of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the woman's health must be paramount," Frizzell said.
Bradley said that a broader health exception would have been too all-encompassing. He said he's fine with the one that's included in the bill.
"I would argue that it is well defined and not all that narrow, that it does include health risks to a woman that would endanger her life," Bradley said.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass, a Republican who represents New Hampshire's Second district, also voted for the ban. Though Bass has historically been lauded in pro-choice circles for his general support of a woman's right to choose, he has long said he'd back a ban on partial-birth abortions in the third trimester.
"While we are disappointed that Congressman Bass has continued to support this legislation in the absence of a health exception . . . we are also not surprised given his track record on similar bills," Frizzell said.
Bass said yesterday that he believes a woman ought to decide to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable. After viability, he said, a fetus should be treated as if it were living.
"I don't think that the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure itself violates Roe v. Wade," Bass said. "I think this particular procedure is not necessary to the preservation of a woman's right to choose."
Still, Bass supported an amendment to the partial-birth abortion bill this week that would've broadened the health exception. As an example, the amendment would've provided an exception if the woman's fertility was in jeopardy.
The approved bill does not provide such an exception. It says that the ban "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
Bradley voted against the broader amendment, which ultimately tanked. The final bill passed 282-139.
The House bill defines a partial-birth abortion as: "The person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers 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 breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."
Wayne Goldner, an obstetrician and gynecologist with Manchester Obstetrical Associates, said there isn't a medical procedure called a "partial-birth abortion." He's never performed one, and he's never heard of anyone else who has. The bill passed by the House this week is just one step, Goldner said, toward restricting access to all abortions.
"The bottom line is this has nothing to do with any procedure," Goldner said. "You're potentially defining any abortion. In any abortion where the fetus starts out alive when you do the procedure, there's a presenting part of the fetus and then the fetus dies. So therefore what they're just done is described any abortion and that is the purpose of the bill."
"What the partial-birth abortion (movement) has done has created the best media campaign," Goldner said, "and I give them a lot of credit."
So, this is what it's like to have no soul.
Oh no, his vote concerns a potential one-one-one primary from the conservative wing of the Republican party in September 2004. He gets to show the Republican voters, "See, I am conservative in the same degree of Congressman Bass." He also might get the chance for the Manchester Union Leader to lean their criticism of him.
It's a smart vote.
Bradley could be taken out, but it needs to be done by ONE well-financed conservative Republican.
Wayne Goldner, an obstetrician and gynecologist with Manchester Obstetrical Associates, said there isn't a medical procedure called a "partial-birth abortion." He's never performed one, and he's never heard of anyone else who has. The bill passed by the House this week is just one step, Goldner said, toward restricting access to all abortions.
"The bottom line is this has nothing to do with any procedure," Goldner said. "You're potentially defining any abortion. In any abortion where the fetus starts out alive when you do the procedure, there's a presenting part of the fetus and then the fetus dies. So therefore what they're just done is described any abortion and that is the purpose of the bill."
Goldner is either completely deluded or a total liar. Considering his medical knowledge, it must be the latter. He's using semantics to cover the truth about the abortion procedure in question, and he's flatly contradicting the reality of the bill's wording.
"What the partial-birth abortion (movement) has done has created the best media campaign," Goldner said, "and I give them a lot of credit."
Interesting that he would see this in terms of a media campaign, rather than truth.
My own Rep., Sue Kelly, also votes for the PBA ban. Kelly was a rabid proabortion activist prior to her election, so this too comes as a surprise. I've always thought that the party, at the time in the person of Dick Armey, leaned on her to fall in line.
This article is heavy with proabort citations. The prolife position is kept on the defensive, and isn't given much voice.
No, here in NH I don't think so.
Jeez, you're being cranky today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.