PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

[Uncle Bill]

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE

NewsWithViews.com
By David Brownlow
May 9, 2003
Source

A politician would have a hard time finding a more loyal special interest group than with those of us who oppose the legalized child killing industry. For the last thirty years of the war on the unborn, we have worked tirelessly to elect pro-life, mostly Republican, politicians.

Our loyalty was so strong that even though the Republicans failed to deliver us a single pro-life victory, we continued to send them back to Washington year after year. For thirty years, we trusted the Republicans when they told us to be patient, because they had a plan and a party platform that said abortion was wrong.

We now know that everything they told us was a complete pack of lies.

We know that because the Senate has finally passed the long awaited "Partial Birth Abortion Ban," Senate Bill S.3. Rather than being a useful tool in the fight to stop a barbaric and indefensible method of child killing, S.3 reads more like an instruction manual for abortionists.

In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "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", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?

Excuse me for shouting, but IF THE HEAD IS ALMOST OUT OF THE MOTHER, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KID? Do we hate children so much that we cannot wait 10 more seconds for the child to be born? 42,000,000 children killed since 1973 and this is the best they could come up with. What kind of people have we been putting into office?

If Senate Bill S.3 was just plain bad legislation, we could almost forgive the politicians for their incompetence. But believe it or not, this bill gets even worse. It gets a lot worse.

Not content to just write a watered down, sorry excuse for an abortion ban, the Senate goes on in Sec. 4, to let us all know "The Sense on the Senate Concerning Roe. v. Wade". I am not sure what kind of sense these people have, but we have definitely found out what we get for thirty years of loyalty. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,

"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".

You need to read that again. I've read it about 20 times and it still hurts to look at it.

Please understand that it was not just a few renegade Senators who voted for this. It was 48 Republican Senators, including every one of them who ever told us they were pro-life, who put their name on a bill that says; Roe v. Wade was "appropriate." This is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the illegal Supreme Court decision that started this whole mess back in 1973. If I had not read it for myself I would not believe it.

The extent of their betrayal is absolutely breath taking!

So now we know why the Republicans have gone thirty years without a single pro- life victory. These guys are not even pro-life! We have been fooling ourselves that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the years of partisan efforts were getting us closer to ending legalized abortion in America. But if the "sense" of the Senate is any indication, we have not even started the fight. We can now only hope that the House has enough sense to put S.3 out of it's misery.

A decades old policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has left us with a Republican Party that is a mere hollowed-out shell of its former self, broken beyond any hope of repair. The only way we are ever going to win this fight is by putting men and women of integrity into office who will not bow to the political pressures.

Clearly, the team we have in there now is not up to the task.

---

Partial- birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation
"President Bush supports the ban, but there has been no indication if he would sign it into law if it included the Roe resolution."

---

S 3 ES

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 3

---

AN ACT

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000)), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health' of the mother.

(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.

(5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.

(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not `clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous `when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina (470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Under this standard, `if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently' (Id. at 574).

(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge--the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the `clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.

(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan (384 U.S. 641 (1966)), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of Congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4 (e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in `gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that `[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.' (Id. at 653).

(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the `bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that `congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979)) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S. (46 U.S. 156 (1980)).

(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must- carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I)) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II)). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be `seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, `Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here' (512 U.S. at 665-66). Although the Court recognized that `the deference afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,' its `obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (Id. at 666).

(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the `must- carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's `sole obligation is `to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' (520 U.S. at 195). Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that `[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon' legislative questions,' (Id. at 195), and added that it `owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.' (Id. at 196).

(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial- birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer- reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial- birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice,' that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial- birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is `ethically wrong,' and `is never the only appropriate procedure'.

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child `in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a `person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially- born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial- birth abortions are `ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the `partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'.

(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial- birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.

(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

`Sec.

`1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--

`(A) 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; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

`(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.

`(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

`(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

--1531'.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

(a) FINDINGS- The Senate finds that--

(1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); and

(2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE- It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and

(2) such decision should not be overturned.

Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 3

AN ACT

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

END

---

Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History

Covenant News
Staff
January 11, 2002

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion- family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning.
[end of excerpt]
SOURCE

U.S. Quietly OKs Fetal Stem Cell Work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use

White House killed human-cloning ban
Although President Bush has endorsed a complete ban on human cloning sponsored by senators Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D.- La., White House lobbyists contacted Republican senators June 18 to ask them to vote that morning for cloture (a closing of debate to bring a legislative question to a vote) on the Senate's terrorism insurance bill (S 2600), thus preventing an up-or-down vote on a human cloning amendment that Brownback wanted to attach to the bill. His amendment would have banned the patenting of human embryos – effectively destroying any economic incentive for the experimental cloning of human beings."

[Sir Gawain]

I'm still waiting on you to make good on that threat. You remember, don't you? It was in that email where you made some false claims about you-know-what. So that makes at least two documented lies from you:

#1 - the initial false claim (still funny btw, lol) and
#2 - your threat that never materialized.

Then again, maybe I'm being too hard on you. Maybe you actually believe the stuff you say. That doesn't make it any less funny though! LOL

[Artist]

"When I point out that the ONLY PBA permitted by this bill is when the mother's life is in danger, you call it a mile wide loophole...which is it then?"

It takes 3 DAYS to perform a partial birth abortion. Obviously, someone with an emergency medical condition doesn't have three days to resolve it. The only point in doing a PBA is to deliver a dead baby.

As for loopholes, the leading third trimester abortionist, "Tiller the Killer," isn't worried about that: LINK

[winodog]

Only a truly lousy, vile, evil and despicible "doctor" could justify such a barbaric act. I trust tiller has the shock and awe of a eternal life in agony on judgement day.

FR seems to be able to read the fine print. It would appear that the PBA still lives and the ban has no teeth. I had such high hopes. It may be a start but I was hoping for a crushing defeat.
I must admit that I am not suprised. It would seem that our politicians are pros at bread and circuses but adept failures at everything else.
I wonder how much longer our Creator will continue to protect a country that turns its back on him and actually murders his children while still in the womb.
PBA sickens me. I was ashamed when men and women in congress and the senate actually talked about it as if it was a noble thing.
What happened to "its for the children". Surely sticking a fork in a babies head as the childs legs and arms wiggle and the child screams for the first breath of air outside the womb that will never come is not for the children.
It must be for selfish, self centered women and greedy "doctors". I find it very hard to describe a person who could actually perform such a act as a doctor.
And I thought hillary clintons husband was shameless.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Obviously, someone with an emergency medical condition doesn't have three days to resolve it."

Which means that every single time that excuse is used to perform a PBA, the resoning will not only be questioned, but the finding challenged and most likely defeated, leading to jail time for the physician performing the procedure, as well as financial penalties via law suits, as allowed for in the bill. Some parts of this fight belong to us.

As for Tiller...there will always be people like him, butchers.

I agree with the position taken by the pro-life activist on the article, and suggest that we need to demand enforcement of this law at the State level, even if it means the enactment of further legislation at the State level requiring second or even third opinions by outside parties on the dangers to the mother's life.

It is also heartening to read that anti-abortion forces are threatening to challenge the bill.

P.S. the next logical step is to ban the procedure performed by this Tiller (rhymes with killer).

[Luis Gonzalez]

I know that we haven't agreed on other issues in the past, but I have to let you know that your posts on this subject are awesome.

On other threads we will resume our regularly scheduled disagreements.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Looks like this bill "fooled" some pretty strong people.

Final Approval Near for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, As Pro-Abortion Leaders
Raise Alarms and Vow Fight in Court

WASHINGTON (June 6, 2003)-- The day is fast approaching when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will be signed into law by President Bush, following overwhelming endorsement of the bill by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 4.

The signing will be the culmination of an eight-year fight by the National Right to Life Committee and other pro-life forces.

The ban, which was twice vetoed by President Bill Clinton, is strongly supported by President Bush.

The New York Times said the latest developments were  "putting the antiabortion movement on the brink of a major victory," while Knight-Ridder Newspapers called it the  "biggest legislative victory in more than a decade" for pro-life forces.

"The House sent the message that human life is valuable and that our law cannot sanction such barbarism," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

But pro-abortion leaders denounced the legislation as an assault on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. They vowed to fight the law in court as soon as President Bush signs it.

Kate Michelman, president of the group that currently calls itself  "NARAL Pro-choice America," said,  "This is a broad, unconstitutional bill which sacrifices women' s health and future fertility on the altar of extreme right-wing ideology."  When the ban is signed into law, "the sleeping giant that is pro-choice America will awaken," she predicted.

Final steps soon

The Senate passed its version of the bill (S.3), sponsored by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), on March 13 by a vote of 64-33. (See April NRL News, page 1.)

On June 4, the House took up its version (H.R. 760), sponsored by Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio). The House rejected two gutting amendments, and then passed the ban by 282-139 B a two-to-one margin.

(To see the roll calls, go to the House scorecard at the NRLC website Legislative Action Center)

The Senate attached to its version a non-binding resolution to endorse Roe v. Wade (the Harkin Amendment), and pro-life forces want to see that amendment removed in an upcoming House-Senate conference committee.

After the conference committee produces a final version of the bill, it must be approved by both houses before it is sent to President Bush for his signature.

These final steps in the legislative process could take a number of weeks.

Following the House vote, the White House released a statement in which the President said, "I applaud the House for passing legislation banning partial-birth abortions. Passage of this important legislation is a shared priority that will help build a culture of life in America. I urge Congress to quickly resolve any differences and send me the final bill as soon as possible so that I can sign it into law."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tx.) commented,  "After eight long years, Congress will finally send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban to a president willing to sign it. When he does, abortion will still be with us. The debate over the rights of the unborn will continue, and new battles will be fought."

House Debate

During the House debate, opponents of the ban argued that the bill violates two U.S. Supreme Court rulings -- Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion on demand, and Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 decision in which five justices held that Roe v. Wade covers even partial-birth abortions.

According to press reports, several pro-abortion groups are planning legal challenges as soon as the bill is signed, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the ACLU.

"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 scissors," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.  "But five Supreme Court justices have said that the right of abortionists to perform partial-birth abortions is guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. We hope that by the time this ban reaches the Supreme Court, at least five justices will be willing to reject such extremism."

The January 2003 Gallup poll found that 70% favored and 25% opposed  "a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother."

The bill legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered alive until  "in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother," or if the baby is delivered head first,  "the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before being killed. The bill would allow the method if it was ever necessary to save a mother's life.

House Rejects Phony Ban

The House overwhelmingly rejected, 133-287, a competing bill ("substitute amendment" ) offered by the chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). While promoted as a  "ban" on  "late-term" abortions, Hoyer and Greenwood conceded that their measure would allow abortions even during the final three months of pregnancy for  "mental health."

NRLC' s Johnson commented,  "The Greenwood-Hoyer proposal was a complete sham. This phony ban was offered by pro-abortion leaders in the House to provide political cover for colleagues who wanted to maintain favor with pro-abortion groups by voting against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, but also hoodwink their constituents by casting a vote that they could later misrepresent as restricting so-called 'late-term' abortions."

Following rejection of the Greenwood-Hoyer phony ban, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wi.) offered a motion to add an exception to the partial-birth ban for  "health" -- a term which has been defined by the Supreme Court to include even avoiding emotional distress. The Baldwin motion failed 165 to 256.

The tally on final passage of H.R. 760 was 282-139, one vote more than a two-thirds margin (although only a simple majority was necessary). The bill was supported by 220 Republicans and 62 Democrats. It was opposed by five Republicans, 133 Democrats, and one independent.

Source

[Luis Gonzalez]

"FR seems to be able to read the fine print."

I guess National Right To Life must have been fooled by this "toothless" bill as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You know I know, and you know how I know.

[Mo1]

[BTW, Mercuria is still pro-life, without a doubt. What she says about me or anyone else at FR is actually irrelevant; she's wrestling with political 'spectres', that's all.]

I don't question her views/feeling of pro-life .. I am sure she is. I just don't agree with the all or nothing

[winodog]

Yes. Sorta reminds me of the NRA.

[Sir Gawain]

I know the earth is round, Speedy, but I don't go around thinking it's a secret. LOL

I wanna see my "thousand screen names" you claim I have. That'll be fun.

Aw geez. Looks like my bozo filter broke.

[.30Carbine]

It isn't that I don't agree with open debate. I love open debate! But the gang wars are not about open debate, are they?

I would call it childish except that because it has the power to dissaude others from participating it is too dangerous to compare to the behavior of children.

The personal attacks back and forth between FReepers are disheartening. I know Jim can't play Daddy to everyone; I don't expect him to. Perhaps he was hoping, as I would, that banning the worst would encourage the lesser of the disruptors - and personal attacks are disrupting - to shape up. I am thoroughly disgusted with the deliberate attempt by you to discredit this PBA ban - and to insinuate through your supposed 'questioning' that Bush and our Republican leadership in House and Senate are deliberate liars. It's Clintonian - a liar accusing an innocent of lying! The influence of FR has always been in seeking the truth, not the spreading of lies. Here in FReeperdom we tear down the lies!

I myself have some disagreements with President Bush's actions, and have posted such, but when he has done well I have praised him gladly. This PBA ban is central to the Bush Agenda - it was a campaign promise and it will be fulfilled in his first term. It is a huge victory for the President, for the pro-life movement, and for the unborn. Why, then, can't you praise it?

You have always maintained that you are pro life. That makes all of this appear even more hateful: you are willing to sacrifice this much-needed pro-life legislation for the sake of scandalizing President Bush and the Republican party, or sabotaging FR, or both. Unbelievable.

Sabertooth, you are engaging in slander, bad enough in it's own right, but you're doing it by subterfuge, which is even more evil.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your Bozo filter broke?

Maybe some evil moderator can help you fix it.

Or is it going to require someone with an engineering degree to get it done?

I know a couple of graduates from Texas A&M that may be able to help.

[Sir Gawain]

That's all you got? I'm truly unimpressed. Where's my "thousand screen names"? Or was that another lie Babs?

[Sir Gawain]

BTW, looks like your alternate ID that "wasn't really you" has been purged from the database. Wonder why that is, Babs?

[jjbrouwer]

Careful. It's probably safer to flame him with your DarthDrake ID.

[DeSoto]

Thanks for your response #786. You make a lot of sense and I enjoy reading your viewpoints. I try to catch your posts as often as I can and have learned and lot from you. FR is a great place to learn things; it is possible by reading and sifting through the flames and ashes, to find gems of truth and wisdom like no other place.

While you are not always right (Schwarzenegger DID run LOL ), your viewpoints and experiences are invaluable to those of us who enjoy the pursuit of hidden gems.

I agree with your assessment of the 1/3 in the center. They are the ones that need to be targeted when formulating arguments and phraseology.

Thanks again for your response.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, I have more, and so do you...but that's the first.

The question is, are you going to lack the balls to own up to it?

[Sir Gawain]

and so do you

Put up or shut up.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No proof, just innuendoes, and no opinions of your own either.