Sweet!
Posted on 10/21/2003 2:44:35 PM PDT by cgk
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:25 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Fox News Alert - bill is headed to Pres. Bush for his signature!
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ping!
Sweet!
Most of all, thank You, Lord!!
The interstate commerce clause. I kid you not. The bill bans any partial birth abortion "in or affecting commerce," which the bill defines as an abortion performed using medical supplies which crossed a state line.
The evil minions of pro-death must be screeching in pain today.
| Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 WASHINGTON — Congress on Tuesday sent President Bush legislation to ban what critics call partial birth abortion (search) -- after years of emotional debate -- the most significant restriction since the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion three decades ago.
Abortion rights groups promised to challenge the law in court as soon as President Bush signed it. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search), R-Tenn. -- a heart and lung surgeon -- told Fox News he's confident the ban will withstand any court challenges. Calling the procedure "egregious, outlandish and ghoulish," Frist argued it is not something that is medically necessary -- as some Democrats have argued in the case of a woman's health -- and said he is excited that the bill will finally be signed, rather than vetoed, by the president. The bill was passed by a wide margin, three weeks after the House passed an identical bill, 281-142. Bush had urged Congress to pass the ban, which Republicans had pursued since the GOP captured the House in 1995, and the president had said he would sign it into law. But opponents said the first federal ban on abortion since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional and, like similar state laws, would be struck down. The president, said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "will become the first United States president to criminalize a safe medical procedure." Doctors who violate the ban would be subject to prison terms of up to two years. The two sides differed widely on the frequency and definition of partial birth abortion, which is not a formal medical term. The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a 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 the 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." Opponents of the legislation argued that, as defined in the bill, it could apply to several safe and common procedures, and that the real goal of the legislation was to erode overall abortion rights.
But Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., chief sponsor of the bill, said the procedure was both inhumane and unnecessary. "We can't allow this kind of brutality to corrupt us. It makes a much more brutal and harsher country if we stand here and say, yes, for whatever reason, we are going to allow this to occur." Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law. "We will take this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the lives and health of women," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria Feldt said her group would seek an injunction preventing the legislation from taking effect. A key focus will be the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000 that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional because the definition of the practice was too vague -- making it unclear to doctors what procedures were illegal -- and didn't have an exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go along with an exception for when the life of the mother was in danger. Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother. President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth bills on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Anti-abortion leaders said the coming court battle would have far-reaching ramifications. "In 2000, five Supreme Court justices said that Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right of abortionists to perform partial-birth abortions whenever they see fit. But Congress is now inviting the Supreme Court to re-examine that extreme and inhumane decision," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. The Associated Press contributed to this report. |
||||||||||||||||||||
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.
