| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Non-theistic... |
| Atheism |
| Agnosticism |
| Humanism |
| Other |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
 | Attempts to create a federal anti-D&X bill:
|
1995 Federal bill to ban D&X procedures
Rep. Canady (R-FL), supported by 28 other members introduced resolution HR 1833 1995-JUN-14 to the House of Representatives. If passed, it would have been given the short title of "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 1995." Chapter 74 would have been added to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 1531 would state:
| (a) Whoever, 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 two years, or both. |
| (b) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. |
The bill would have allowed a physician to defend the use of a D&X procedure if "the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman upon whom it was performed, and no other form of abortion would suffice for that purpose." [In most cases, a hysterotomy could be performed. However, it is major surgery, involves much higher infection risks to the woman, and can have a severe negative impact on future pregnancies.]
Senate hearings were held, starting in mid 1995-NOV. An enormous amount of conflicting and mutually exclusive testimony was given (US Senate Hearing Report 104-260). As in war, truth is often the first casualty in controversial religious topics:
| Some testimony revealed that state laws concerning third trimester abortions and/or state medical society regulations have been violated by physicians. D&X procedures had been conducted for elective reasons: e.g. because the woman was suicidally depressed. Others testified that D&Xs were only done when the fetus was dead (or hopelessly malformed) or when the woman's life was at risk or when the woman's long term health would be seriously damaged. |
| Some testimony stated that during a D&X, the fetus is anesthetized and cannot feel pain; others said the opposite: that the anesthetic cannot pass the placental barrier and affect the fetus. |
| Some authorities testified that fetuses cannot feel pain under any conditions; others testified that fetus can feel pain at an early gestational age in the first trimester. |
These people are experts. Some are obviously not telling the truth. Further, it seems certain that many were consciously lying in order to promote their religious or political positions.
Pro-choice groups lobbied Congress to modify the bill so that it would allow the procedure in those rare cases where the woman needed a D&X in order to avoid very serious, permanent health problems. Senator Boxer (1995-DEC-7) proposed an amendment that would have allowed D&Xs "after viability where, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman." Ex-Surgeon General C Everett Koop said that this amendment was a "complete sham" It would "not outlaw a single one of the thousands of partial-birth abortions performed each year." 1 Dr. Koop appears to believe that all D&Xs are done to avoid serious adverse health consequences to the woman or to save her life.
This amendment was defeated.
The House bill was passed in late 1995 with votes 288-139 and 286-139, largely with Republican party support. The Senate passed the bill 54-44 on 1995-DEC-7. President Clinton wrote of having "studied and prayed about this issue...for many months," of finding the procedure "very disturbing," and of seeking "common ground...that respects the views of those -- including myself -- who object to this particular procedure." He indicated that if there were a provision in the bill like Senator Boxer had proposed, that he would have signed it into law. But he felt that too many women would be disabled or have their long term health seriously damaged if the bill were made law. Because it would not "allow women to protect themselves from serious threats to their health," he vetoed the bill on 1996-APR-10.
An attempt to overturn the presidential veto passed in the house but failed in the Senate. The vote was 57 to 41 in favor of passage, which was short of the 2/3 majority vote required to override a presidential veto. Pro-life forces have consistently misrepresented the President's stand by incorrectly stating that the President wanted very late term D&Xs to be legal for simple "health" reasons. The term "health" had been defined by the courts very broadly, to include suicidal ideation, depression, etc. In fact, he wanted a clause to protect women from:
| permanent physical disability, or |
| a devastating degeneration to their health. |
In 1996-DEC, President Clinton again declared he would sign an amended ban on partial-birth abortions - one that would criminalize D&Xs except when they are required to prevent devastating, long-term health consequences to the woman. This is a much narrower criteria than "the Roe/Doe definition of health," specifies.
Many pro-life leaders continue to say that President Clinton is misrepresenting the facts. Some incorrectly state that he is using the all-inclusive Roe/Doe definition of health. 2 Some state that his version would stop almost no D&Xs. The latter statement appears to be an admission by pro-life groups that essentially all D&Xs are performed to avoid overwhelming, long-term damage to the woman's health or to save her life.
This essay continues below.
Sponsored link:
1997 Federal bill:
A bill banning D&Xs was reintroduced into the House in early 1997. Its wording was essentially unchanged from the earlier version. D&Xs would be criminal acts at any stage of pregnancy, unless required to save the life of the woman. President Clinton again threatened to re-veto the legislation in its original form. The bill easily passed through the House in 1997-MAR-20 as HR 1122 with a vote of 295 to 136.
According to the Family Research Council's 1997-APR-3 newsletter by Gary Bauer, a consortium of pro-life agencies planned to promote the creation of a series of federal laws. They would:
| Ban all abortions in the second and third trimester. [It is unclear why they would push for such a law. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such limitations are unconstitutional. A federal law would be nullified by a court injunction within hours of being signed into law. With the present makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, the only way to constitutionally achieve a ban of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions would be by a amendment to the U.S. Constitution.] | ||||||||
| Their next goal
will be to ban:
These laws would require enforced parenthood for all pregnant women. Terminally ill people experiencing unspeakable agony will be required to continue in pain until their bodies finally "give up the ghost." |
In 1997-MAY, two D&X bills were introduced into the Senate.
| The Republican version was identical to that previously passed in the House. |
| The Democratic version would criminalize any D&X performed after the fetus became viable unless required to avoid the likely death or grievous damage to the health of the woman. |
A White House spokesperson stated that President Clinton would sign the latter bill if it were passed by Congress.
There was a large degree of consensus in the Senate and House on the conditions under which D&Xs should be outlawed. There was a general agreement that:
| D&Xs should be allowed if it is necessary to save the woman's life. |
| D&Xs should be allowed if the fetus is dead. |
| D&Xs should not be allowed for ordinary health reasons. |
| D&Xs should not be allowed in cases of rape or incest. |
| D&Xs should not be allowed in cases where the fetus is very severely malformed and would die within hours or days of birth. (e.g. the fetus may have developed with only a brain stem in place and without a functioning brain. If it were delivered normally, it would die in a few days, and never attain consciousness. During those days, no brain function would be present because there is no brain present in the skull. The "baby" would be like a very precisely constructed doll, with no thought processes, no awareness of self or the environment. But it looks like a baby, so many people feel that it should not be aborted.) |
A major difference of opinion exist in situations where the life of the woman is not in jeopardy, but her health would be "grievously damaged" unless she was given a D&X procedure. These are situations in which the woman would be severely disabled or would suffer very serious long term health problems. The Republican bill would not allow a D&X in this case; the Democratic bill would permit the procedure if the woman and her physician decided that it was the least-worse option.
Reporting on these bills by the media and by conservative Christian organizations is very imprecise and confusing. 3,4 The Democratic bill is often described as allowing D&Xs for simple health reasons. e.g.: if the woman is depressed about the pregnancy, or she had suddenly decided in her 8th month of pregnancy that a baby would be too great an economic or emotional burden to handle. Such reporting ignores the fact that the Democratic version of the bill would not allow a D&X procedure for simple health reasons. There would have to be the probability of extremely serious, grievous and perhaps permanently disabling health damage to the woman.
The American Medical Association went on record as supporting HR 1122. 5 Their AMA's expert panel could not find "any identified situation" in which a D&X was "the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion."
A hysterotomy is like a Caesarian section It is the one alternative procedure that could be performed instead. It is major surgery which would expose the woman to the possibility of an infection, would require a longer recovery period, would leave a scar, and might impact very negatively on future pregnancies. But it would not involve the partial delivery of a fetus.
The AMA is normally opposed to legislation that criminalizes a medical procedure, but have supported bills "where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated." In this case, they decided to support the bill after it was modified to provide that "any accused physician [had] the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced."
The Republican version of the bill was passed by the House by 295 to 136. A slightly revised version was passed by the Senate on 1997-MAY-20 by 64 to 36. Senators repeated the usual charges:
| Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA) said: "This is about infanticide. We worry so much about the right to choose. What about the right to choose life, to give this baby a chance.'' [The answer is obvious: allowing the birth to continue would result in the death or very serious, long term injury to the woman.] |
| Senator Barbara Boxer, (D-CA) said: ''This bill does harm. Please do not relegate women to the status that says their life and their health does not matter.'' [Her comment is not particularly rational. All sides in the issue agree that if the woman's life is in danger, that she should have a D&X.] |
The House then agreed to the Senate version by a vote of 296 to 132 on 1997-OCT-8. As written, the bill would prohibit a D&X in cases where severe injury, massive health damage or permanent disability would occur to the woman. Because of this, President Clinton vetoed the bill on 1997-OCT-10.
The bill was returned to the House of Representatives, who voted to override the President's veto by more than a 2/3 majority on 1998-JUL-23. The Senate's vote was delayed until SEP-18, presumably to maximize its impact on the fall elections. Although their vote was 64 to 36 in favor of overriding the veto, it was an insufficient margin. The vote was unchanged from when they last passed the bill in 1997-MAY. None of the senators changed their minds. The vote fell short of a 2/3 majority by 3 votes.
1999 Federal bill:
The U.S. Senate debated the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 in 1999-OCT. A repetition of earlier attempts occurred. i.e.: | There would be a consensus in the Senate that most D&Xs should be banned. |
| The bill would have allowed a D&X if it is necessary to save the life of the woman. |
| The bill would have allowed a D&X if the fetus is dead. |
| The bill would not have allowed a D&X if it is needed to prevent very serious, long term, and potentially disabling injury to the woman. |
| President Clinton indicated that he would refuse to sign the bill into law unless it contained the above escape clause. |
| The bill's promoters said that a health clause cannot be included. As Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly states: "Health is something which is expanded so widely under Supreme Court rulings that it would nullify any prohibition on partial-birth abortions." |
| Democrats brought forth a health clause amendment which would circumvent the Supreme Court definition "health" and allow D&Xs on live fetuses only in the event of a very serious disabling injury to the woman. The amendment was defeated. |
| The bill was passed. |
| The president vetoed it. |
| The veto was overridden by the House. |
| It was passed 63 to 34 by the Senate. This is two votes short of the level needed to overrule a presidential veto. |
| The level of very serious and long-lasting maternal disability will not increase in the U.S. Near-term and full term fetuses will continue to be killed via D&X procedures, whenever doctors and pregnant women decide together that they are warranted. |
Year 2000 Federal bill:
On 2000-APR-5, the House passed the bill 287 to 141. As in any war, truth is often the first casualty. The usual misinformation circulated about the PBA's: | Tom Coburn (R-OK) said "We do not believe it is proper to rationalize one moral error with another moral error. The first moral error is attaining an unwanted pregnancy. The second moral error is to eliminate that pregnancy because it inconveniences you." This statement overlooks the fact that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the president all want to create a law that regulates D&X procedures. The only point of contention is whether a woman who will be seriously disabled should be allowed to have the procedure. A D&X is performed to end a pregnancy that has gone horribly bad; they are unrelated to pregnancies that are unwanted, except by coincidence. |
| Helen Alvare, spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference, said: "We have continued to increase our support in Congress with every vote. We have continued to reach pro-abortion members of Congress who have never voted with us before." To our knowledge, there are no "pro-abortion" members of Congress. There are many "pro-lifers" who want to reduce or eliminate the number of voluntary abortions; there are many "pro-choicers" who want to give women the ability to choose to have an early abortion. There are no "pro-abortion" members who promote abortion. |
| Carrie Earll, spokesperson for Focus on the Family said "It's gruesome. It's brutal, and it is infanticide. It is not abortion...We're not going to role over and say, 'OK, well, we'll just let you go ahead and keep brutally killing late-term babies like this.' " A D&X procedure is not infanticide because it is performed on a fetus which has not been born -- generally to save the life of the mother, or because the fetus is dead. Alternative methods of terminating advanced pregnancies, which have gone terribly wrong, place the woman at greater risk. |
In his 2000-AUG-3 acceptance speech as presidential nominee for the Republican Party, George W Bush indicated that, as president, he would sign into law a bill that outlawed D&X procedures.
Representative Steve Chabot, (R-OH) introduced a revamped anti-D&X bill. Debate over this bill was like those of previous years:
| The vast majority in congress will favor allowing D&X procedures in those very rare instances where it is required to save the life of a woman. |
| The vast majority will favor prohibiting D&X procedures in those very rare instances when it is merely the wish of the woman to terminate her pregnancy. |
| Democrats and Republicans will be split over the use of a D&X procedure which are needed to save the woman from permanent and seriously disabling injuries. Democrats will favor allowing the woman to choose whether to have the procedure; Republicans will favor forbidding it. |
| The bill never emerged from Congress. |
In its decision to declare the Nebraska state D&X law unconstitutional, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled "that significant medical authority supports
the proposition that in some circumstances [D&X procedure] would be the
safest procedure" for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion.
6
References:
- Quoted in Martin Sabo's (D-MN), Congressional Letter of 1996-NOV-5.
- "Virginia: Pro-life groups work for partial-birth abortion ban," at: http://www.champion.org/cpc-partial.htm
- National Right to Life, "Clinton Again Stands in the Way of Ban On Brutal Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure," 1997-MAY-19 at: http://www.nrlc.org/release970519.html
- Concerned Women for America, "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Passes House!" 1997-OCT-8, at: http://www.cwfa.org/archive/pressreleases/press_hD&X1097.html
- P. John Seward, M.D., Exec. VP of the American Medical Association, Letter to The Honorable Rick Santorum, 1997-MAY-19, at: http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net/AbortionAMA597.html
- "Stenberg v. Carhart," 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000).
Copyright © 1996 to 2004 incl. by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Last updated: 2004-FEB-11
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
