Partial-birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation

The legislative ban on partial-birth abortion has struck an impediment on the way to the White House.

Senate opponents of the bill are maneuvering to block passage or to include an amendment offensive to supporters in the final version of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D.-Calif., and Tom Harkin, D.-Iowa, are leading an effort to kill the bill or to affirm legalized abortion in the final version, according to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

Six weeks after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the ban, the measure still has not gone to a conference committee to report out a final bill. The House version approved June 4 did not include an amendment the Senate incorporated into its bill passed in March.

Senators had attached to their version a nonbonding resolution affirming the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in which the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide. That resolution, offered by Harkin, expressed the Senate's belief that Roe v. Wade "was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right," and should not be reversed.

When House and Senate bills have differences, a conference committee of members from both houses is appointed to negotiate a final measure. The House has appointed its conferees, but the Senate has not, Roll Call reported.

While Boxer and Harkin would like to prevent final passage of the bill, they also would accept a ban that affirms Roe v. Wade.

"I want to make a stand in favor of Roe," Boxer said, according to Roll Call. "I have no intention of filibustering. But if we keep Roe in, we might be able to stop this bill." A filibuster is a legislative tactic designed to kill a bill through delay. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and end a filibuster.

At least some House pro-life members, however, have signaled they are unwilling to compromise in order to enact a ban on the grisly abortion procedure.

"Even in a sense of the Congress resolution that is non-binding, you're asking me to vote for something that's egregious to me," Rep. Lee Terry, R.-Neb., said, according to Roll Call. Including the Roe language would "basically send a message to the Supreme Court that's the opposite of the message we're trying to send," he said.

President Bush supports the ban, but there has been no indication if he would sign it into law if it included the Roe resolution.

The legislation would prohibit an abortion method that normally consists of the delivery of an intact baby feet first until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the baby's skull with surgical scissors, then inserts a catheter into the opening and suctions out the brain. This typically occurs during the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy.

The House approved the ban with a 282-139 vote, while the Senate passed it 64-33. The Senate vote for the Roe resolution was 52-46, with nine Republicans joining 42 Democrats and an independent in the majority.

If it becomes law, the ban will mark the first time Congress has restricted a particular method since abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court in the Roe decision. Roe, combined with the Doe v. Bolton ruling released at the same time, had the effect of legalizing abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy for unlimited reasons.

Abortion-rights organizations, such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation, have promised to go to court to seek to block enforcement of the ban if it is signed into law.

It is likely the Supreme Court will make the final determination on the measure's legality if it becomes law. In 2000, the high court overturned a state law patterned after a federal ban approved by Congress but vetoed by President Clinton. The justices voted 5-4 to strike down a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion in its Stenberg v. Carhart opinion. The Nebraska measure was one of 27 state laws patterned after the federal legislation.

Congressional supporters of the ban drafted a new version that sought to address the court's contention the Nebraska law could have been interpreted to cover other abortion methods, as well as the justices' declaration the ban needed an exception for maternal health reasons. The bill provides more specific language on the procedure it seeks to prohibit. It also declares in its findings the method is neither safe for women nor necessary to preserve their health. It includes an exception to protect the mother's life.

If enacted, the ban would become federal law after eight years of effort. Congress twice adopted partial-birth abortion bans in the 1990s only to have Clinton veto them both times. In both 1996 and 1998, the House achieved the two-thirds majorities necessary to override Clinton's vetoes, but the Senate fell short.

The Southern Baptist Convention approved resolutions condemning the procedure in both 1996 and 2002. Last year, messengers easily passed a proposal from the floor calling for Bush to make enactment of a ban on the method a high priority. --30--

Thousands of children are brutally murdered every year using the method known as Partial Birth Abortion. Virtually all are healthy children and many are mature enough to survive if born. Yet in this land of the free and home of the brave we elect people who think this SATANIC BRUTALITY is a protected right.

We are a sick people. Hitler and his group would be proud--but they would never have believed this could happen here.

These color illustrations (above) of a partial-birth abortion were prepared on the basis of an instructional paper by an Ohio abortionist, explaining step by step how he performs the procedure. These drawings accurately depict a partial-birth abortion being performed on a baby at 24 weeks gestational age. Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the 20-26 week range (the fifth and sixth months), and some are performed even later.

The Pain of Partial-Birth Abortion

During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. To learn more about the pain that partial-birth abortion inflicts on pre-mature human babies, and about the "anesthesia myth,"

Go to http://nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html for the latest.

In his book, "Notes on the State of Virginia," Jefferson said, writing as a lifelong slave owner,

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

Imagine what Jefferson would say today, in this ever darkening culture of death.

More details:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat49.html

Pro-Abortion Senators Stall Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

by Jill Boughton
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
July 21, 2003

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Both houses of Congress have finally passed legislation banning partial-birth abortion, a procedure so gruesome and unnecessary it is opposed by a large majority of Americans, even those who tend to value "choice" above life.

Unlike his predecessor, who swiftly vetoed it each time it reached his desk, President Bush has stated that passing this legislation is a priority for him. Why then is the bill still languishing, nearly three years after Republicans took control of the White House and Capitol Hill?

The simple answer is that a small number of pro-abortion Senators have pleased their well-heeled constituency by employing one delaying tactic after another.

In the Senate, pro-abortion Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) tacked on an amendment to the bill that put the Senate on record as supporting Roe vs. Wade. Because there was no such language in the House version, it has to go to a conference committee.

That committee should succeed in striking the pro-abortion amendment -- as soon as it is able to get to work.

Near the end of June, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist put forth a motion to appoint Senators to the conference committee; Senate Democrats objected, taking two weeks to specify their objection. Finally Senators Harkin and Boxer (D-CA) put forward a motion to "instruct" conferees to keep his amendment. Boxer admitted in an interview with Roll Call magazine, "If we keep Roe in, we might be able to stop this bill." However, a majority vote on such an "instruction" is not binding on the conferees.

"The current bottleneck is with the appointment of conferees, but the whole business shows that Senator Daschle is writing an entire new book on obstructionist tactics," according to Michael Schwartz, legislative director for Concerned Women for America.

When the conference committee is appointed, pro-life conferees expect to be able to restore a "clean" ban, without the Harkin amendment. However, the conference report will have to be approved by both the Senate and the House, providing yet another opportunity for debate and delay. A spokesman for Harkin said he may end up filibustering the conference report.

Since 65 Senators are already on record in favor of the bill, the outcome is assured, but it will likely have to wait until representatives return from their summer recess, which begins at the end of this week.

President Bush will sign the ban once it reaches his desk, but three pro-abortion groups are coordinating efforts to challenge the it in federal courts.

"Lawyers from the three groups could file lawsuits challenging the measure 'within hours' of the law's enactment, said Priscilla Smith, who will be the lead attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights' challenge."

Quite likely, one or more of these federal judges will prevent enforcement of the law until the issue is resolved. Litigation is likely to be lengthy, and the losing side will certainly appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court already ruled 5-4 against Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions, does this legislation stand a chance of passing judicial muster? We can always hope for a change in the composition of the Supreme Court in the interim, but it's easy to be pessimistic, observing the way Senator Daschle has used filibusters and other tactics to prevent the appointment of judges to lower courts who have the slightest suspicion of being pro-life.

However, this bill is different from Nebraska's in three ways:

It more carefully and clearly defines the exact procedure that is prohibited, making it more difficult for opponents to argue that Congress is attempting to ban a broad right guaranteed by the Constitution (or a retrospective 1973 reading of the Constitution).

It contains a lengthy section of "findings" refuting specious claims the Supreme Court put forth in its 2000 decision. These findings showing conclusively that partial-birth abortion is never, under any conceivable circumstances, necessary to protect the health of the mother.

Because it was passed by the U.S. Congress rather than a state legislature, it is subject to a higher standard of review. This means those who would reject the law have a greater burden of proof than they had in overturning a state law.

In the meantime, pro-lifers in Virginia, Michigan and Missouri are trying to craft laws that identify partial-birth abortion as illegal infanticide. It remains to be seen whether the courts will uphold such laws.

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.