Posted on 03/12/2003 12:08:29 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate brushed aside twin challenges Wednesday to a proposed ban on a controversial abortion procedure, signaling support for legislation that would impose the most significant limits since the Supreme Court legalized abortion three decades ago.
On a vote of 60-38, the Senate first killed a proposal to ban a range of late-term abortions with exceptions for the health of the mother, exceptions that critics said rendered the prohibition all but meaningless.
Moments later, on a vote of 56-42, lawmakers rejected a call to have the bill rewritten in committee to address "constitutional issues raised by the Supreme Court" in a 2000 ruling.
The maneuvering cleared the way for passage Thursday of the legislation to ban what critics call partial birth abortion, a procedure often performed between the 20th and 26th week of pregnancies.
"It's not medically necessary. It's not even medically recognized," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said of the procedure to be banned.
"This bill doesn't protect the health of women. It puts our daughters in harm's way," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Santorum's principal antagonist across three days of occasionally emotional debate.
The bill prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. Partial birth is described as a case in which the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the event of a breech delivery, if "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
Supporters of the bill say it would outlaw a procedure that is barbaric, never medically necessary and carried out in cases in which the fetus would survive if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.
Critics argue the legislation is unconstitutional because it is drafted so vaguely that it could apply to more than one type of procedure, and fails to provide an exemption to protect the health of a mother.
The day's events reflected hardened political lines on abortion, an issue that Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said was dividing America as deeply as slavery did in the 19th century. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that women had the right to abortions.
Durbin authored the proposal to ban a wider range of late-term abortions, but it drew opposition from abortion foes and abortion rights supporters as well.
It would have prohibited abortions after the point that the fetus could survive outside the mother, tempered by an exception in cases that threaten a mother's life or "risk grievous injury to her physical health."
"It doesn't ban abortion, which is what some people want. And it doesn't get the government out of the picture, which is what some other people want," he said. "Instead, it tries to draw a line, a good faith line of where we will allow abortions in late term pregnancies."
But Santorum criticized it. "It eliminates the ban on partial birth abortion," he said, and leaves it up to a doctor to decide when a fetus is viable. "If the doctor says this child is not viable there's no review" by the courts, he said.
Boxer proposed that the legislation be sent to committee to have it rewritten to take a 2000 Supreme Court ruling into account.
But Santorum said the bill's authors had written it to meet the court's standard, and disputed the need for a health exception. The legislation declares that a ban on the procedure would "advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy."
The 2000 court case turned on a Nebraska law that was designed to ban the same type of procedure that the Senate measure addresses. The Supreme Court ruled the state law unconstitutional, saying it placed an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion.
Abortion opponents have been trying since 1995 to ban what they call partial birth abortions. Former President Clinton twice vetoed bills. A third attempt was sidetracked by the court's ruling in 2000. Yet another bid faltered in the last Congress when Democrats gained control of the Senate and refused the schedule a vote.
Critics argue the legislation is unconstitutional because it is drafted so vaguely that it could apply to more than one type of procedure, and fails to provide an exemption to protect the health of a mother.
So which is it?
Wasn't it Santorum that was asking Boxer if a baby is still considered a fetus and can be killed if only the toe was still in the birth canal and Boxer just had no answer for that question? She absolutely refused to go on record with a yes or no answer.
This was about 4-5 years ago...anybody remember that?
Three times during Clinton's presidency PBA was passed by both houses, only to be vetoed at his desk. Somehow, I don't think it will be vetoed this time.
Go pop some popcorn, and get ready for the plaintive wails of the NAG crowd howling in their irrelevancy. In fact, it's about time that their precious "Constitutional Right" (which appears nowhere in the Constitution) saw some limits... preferably as many as there are to my Second Amendment rights, which are explicitly delineated, and more strongly-worded than any other expressly protected right. "Shall not infringe"!
The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.Critics argue the legislation is unconstitutional because it is drafted so vaguely that it could apply to more than one type of procedure, and fails to provide an exemption to protect the health of a mother.
So which is it?
The problem has been that the "health" of the mother was being extended to "mental" health. If giving birth was going to be a traumatic experience that would have effected her mental state, then some doctors would use that as a reason to have this hideous procedure.
There is a BIG difference in protecting the life (pretty specific) or the health (way too vague) of the mother.
I like this Scarborough guy. He is much better than Matthews King, Chung, and virtually anyone on CNN and he beats out O'Reilly too! Your thoughts?
Rick Santorum: "Life is a prerequisite to Liberty."
Allow me to join in the kudos!
And here Hillary thought "I think therefore you are" was a prerequisite to Liberty!
In other words, it's another essentially worthless squandering of moral capital to accomplish nothing of substance.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, VOTE in US Senate, during the week of March 10, Act Now
Since our daughters start in our wombs, Senator 'Vlad the Impaler' Boxer, all abortions put our daughters (and sons) in harm's way.
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.