by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 9, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

bortion fever has now returned to Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the House just approving [282-139] a bill banning "partial birth" abortion, the pejorative name given to late-term abortion. In March, the Senate already passed its version of the bill [64-33], chipping away at the 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade giving women—and their health care professionals—the right to choose. A House-Senate conference committed is expected to smooth out remaining differences, sending the bill to the White House where an emphatic signature anxiously awaits. Since Reagan swept into office in 1981, banning abortion, or, in this case a "type" of abortion, has nearly single-handedly fueled a generation of neo-conservatives. "Partial birth" abortion gave the epoxy needed to join previously disjointed social and religious conservatives. No issue so conveniently reconciled the two groups.

      Banning "partial birth" abortion would create the first federal statute since Roe v. Wade in 1973 outlawing the common medical procedure. Social and Religious conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade, claiming the controversial ruling legalized "baby killing," though many unanswered questions persist, including (a) when life begins and (b) whether an unborn child is a human being. Social and religious conservatives have already answered both questions. "This important legislation . . . that will help build a culture of life in America," said President Bush, urging the Congress to "send me the final bill as soon as possible so that I can sign it into law." Showing the kind of zeal that consolidates his base, President Bush pounced on the opportunity. Though lingering constitutional issues remain, the Supreme Court's conservative tilt should bode well for pro-lifers.

      Pro-choice groups already have bayonets pointed, anticipating almost certain passage of the new ban on late-term abortions. "When the president signs it, we will immediately go to court to have it enjoined in order to safeguard the health of women," said Vicki Saporta, signaling a bitter court battle. Though the High Court struck down a similar Nebraska bill in 2000 for being too vague and far reaching, the current bill clearly targets abortions in the second trimester, with special provisions for life-saving emergencies. Opponents to the new ban object because many fetuses can't survive outside the womb during the second trimester. "Partial birth" abortions assume that the fetus could live outside the womb at the time of the procedure. Yet, using the "second trimeseter" benchmark doesn't satisfy the intent of the ban. Of the 1.3 million abortions performed nationwide in 2000, only 2,200-5,000 qualified as "partial birth."

      Calling "partial birth" abortion "infanticide," the House debate went over the top, accusing opponents of supporting murder. Lost in the debate is the extent to which the federal government should intercede between a woman"s right to health care and her doctors. Under the House's bill, physicians participating in late-term abortions could face suspensions, fines and prison terms, except for life-savings. With no exception for rape or incest, the ban leaves some women vulnerable to arbitrary government control. Before Roe v. Wade, getting abortions was "black market" activity, rife with risks. "The victim is a delivered baby," said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (Rep. Ill), fanning the same hyperbole that led the government to ban potentially life-saving stem cell research. While there's nothing wrong with moral opinionating, there is something wrong with government encroachment on medical decision-making.

      Antiabortionists have always viewed abortions as taking a human life. But questions of when life begins or whether an unborn child is a human being is better left to medical experts, theologians and philosophers than government bureaucrats and elected officials. "The Congress of the United States has never—ever—outlawed medical procedures," said Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D.N.Y.), forgetting that, yes, abortion was indeed outlawed before Roe v. Wade. Congress in deed passed a similar ban on "partial birth" abortion in 1997, but the bill was vetoed by then President Bill Clinton. With a pro-life president sitting in the White House, this year's version is almost certain to become law. Sixty-two Democrats joined 220 Republicans supporting the current legislation, giving significant bipartisan support to the bill. Few pieces of legislation—whether tax cuts or health care—have shown more consensus.

      Getting into the medical decision-making business, the government is yet one step closer fulfilling Orwell's ominous promise. The Communist Party controls family planning in China—do we want the Congress to follow closely behind? Today's Congress is getting dangerously close to controlling medical decision-making. While both sides get hot over abortion, the government should defer medical decisions to free-minded individuals and their health care professionals. Banning fetal tissue research doesn't help cure dreaded diseases any more than outlawing "partial birth" abortions creates a more enlightened society. Even with exceptions for the "health of the mother," the current ban turns back the clock on appropriate medical decision-making. No government agency should interfere with medical research or procedures deemed appropriate by doctors and patients.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.