Senate Approves Federal Abortion Ban
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate voted 64-34 on Tuesday in favor of legislation that would prevent doctors from performing an uncommon abortion procedure that opponents call “partial birth.”. In early October, the House passed the ban by a vote of 281-142.
If President Bush signs the bill as promised, it will mark the first federal restriction on an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman’s right to have an abortion in its Roe v. Wade ruling 30 years ago.
Several abortion-rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, said they would seek an immediate injunction to block the law from taking effect.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, called the bill a “dangerous and deceptive” measure that would “criminalize safe and needed abortion procedures, hindering a woman’s right to choose and have privacy and control of her body that U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution says she has a right to have.
“We are concerned about the impact it would have on all women throughout the country,” she said.
Abortion opponents, meanwhile, cheered the Senate’s approval of the ban, calling it a boon for future anti-abortion legislation.
“We are all excited here,” said Marie Sturgis, executive and legislative director of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. “The bottom line is that it will restore the sanctity and protection of human life known as the right to life.”
Abortion foes said the ban would end the “heinous procedure” known as intact dilation and extraction, which is sometimes performed during the final trimester of a pregnancy. But opponents of the bill say that its “vague wording” could also prevent doctors from performing many second-trimester abortions, which are protected under Roe v. Wade.
“The bill is terrible, from our point of view. It would criminalize safe medical procedures and have a chilling effect on doctors,” said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, which lobbies for abortion rights. “If doctors read the language, which describes many common and safe procedures used in the second and third trimesters, we fear they might start pulling away from performing earlier-term abortions.”
Both Massachusetts senators voted against the bill. Sen. John F. Kerry took a break from his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and flew from New Hampshire to Washington to oppose the ban. His Senate office failed to return phone calls seeking comment on his vote.
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called the ban “blatantly unconstitutional.
“Women have a constitutional right to choose, and Congress should respect that right,” Sen. Kennedy said in a statement.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also voted against the measure in the House. According to the legislation, doctors that perform “partial birth” abortions would be subject to fines and prison terms of up to two years.
“We already have a problem with enough physicians being trained and not wanting their lives to be at risk,” said Dianne Luby, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
Abortion-rights groups also contend that the ban is dangerous because it does not include an exemption to allow for late-term abortions that would protect the health of the woman.
Massachusetts law prohibits any abortion following the 23rd week of pregnancy unless it would “save the woman’s life” or “eliminate a substantial risk of grave impairment to her physical or mental health.”
In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that banned partial-birth abortions, ruling it was unconstitutional because it did not adequately define the prohibited procedure and did not allow it to preserve a woman’s health. Abortion-rights advocates say the legislation passed by Congress is similar to the Nebraska law, but abortion opponents say there are critical differences.
“I believe [legislators] have worked very carefully to draft language that will pass muster with the courts,” said Dr. Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization that opposes abortion.
In 1996 and 1997, then-President Bill Clinton vetoed similar “partial birth” abortion bills because they did not include exceptions for a woman’s health.
“We are cautiously optimistic this time that we are going to get a bill signed into law,” said Dr. Crews.
