Partial birth abortion ban

[Evanauto]

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to place the first federal restrictions on how women terminate their pregnancies since the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

By a 64-33 vote, senators approved a ban on a controversial abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth" abortion. The legislation is expected to pass the House next month, and President Bush said he will sign it. He called it "an important step toward building a culture of life in America." (Related item: Senate roll call on partial-birth abortion)

The action signals a major victory for abortion opponents, who have been trying for eight years to enact the ban. President Clinton vetoed it twice, a third attempt was sidetracked in 2000 when the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska ban, and a fourth effort was blocked by Senate Democrats last year.

But the legislation's significance might be more political than practical. Most experts say dilation and extraction, the medical term for the practice that would be banned, is a rare procedure. It was used in 1,274 of the 1.3 million abortions performed in the USA in 2000, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

Leaders on both sides of the debate said the ban is unlikely to prevent a single abortion from taking place. "There are alternative procedures, and those will be legal," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a physician who supports the ban.

Even so, abortion opponents were elated by the vote to stop a procedure that even some abortion-rights advocates don't support. "It's a victory for the innocents," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., said.

Supporters of abortion rights predict the Supreme Court will rule the ban unconstitutional because it does not make an exception to protect a woman's health, only her life.

"It directly inserts the government between a woman and her physician," said Kate Michelman, head of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

The Senate bill includes a non-binding amendment that says the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision making abortion legal should not be overturned. The amendment, which passed 52-46, showed a deeper split in Congress over abortion rights in general.

The technique the Senate wants to ban is typically used to terminate pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks. It involves the partial extraction of the fetus from the womb and the crushing of its skull. "It is something a civilized country simply should not tolerate," Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said.

Many senators who support abortion rights agreed: 16 Democrats, including Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., joined 48 Republicans to support the ban. Twenty-nine Democrats, three Republicans and an independent voted against it.

Since 1995, 31 states have enacted laws aimed at banning the procedure, but enforcement has been limited by the Supreme Court's ruling in 2000. The high court said the Nebraska law was so vague that it might be used to ban other, more commonly used abortion procedures, and that it did not contain an exception to protect the health of the mother.

Santorum said the Senate bill was carefully drafted to meet the court's objection about vagueness. But it does not include an exception for the health of the mother because backers say the procedure is never the safest method for terminating a pregnancy.

Proponents of abortion rights believe that Senate passage of the ban might have a silver lining. They say it will help women realize that their ability to terminate their own pregnancies might be in danger.

[NEMESiSZ]

Personally, I think many people here would've been better off aborted.

[TheEvilOne]

I posted something about this in the other abortion thread...

[JMHX]

I'm against partial birth abortions, but ignorant people wouldn't know. Good for the government for banning it..

And yes, some of these people would have been better off aborted. JimSween comes to mind.

[NEMESiSZ]

Why don't they just rename it to "French Abortion."

[JMHX]

At 3/13/03 10:21 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Why don't they just rename it to "French Abortion."

...only you. Only you would think of something like that. Very bad, bad person. Mwaha.

[LedZep77]

Jay and Silent Bob in 'Dogma'
"We're prochoice, a womens body is her own f@#$en responiblity."

[thenark]

Well my question about this whole mess, is this. People who murder or injure abortion doctors are using murder and violence to try and stop what they think is violence. Whats the difference between killing an adult and killing an unborn child?

Footnote: if someone can find statistics on people who are anti abortion versus people who are anti abortion who have children, I'd love to see them

[swayside]

At 3/13/03 11:20 PM, LedZep77 wrote: Jay and Silent Bob in 'Dogma'
"We're prochoice, a womens body is her own f@#$en responiblity."

the body of the woman is NOT in question here. the body of the child is. it's not the body of the woman at all. it's not a parisite or inhuman.

[JMHX]

At 3/13/03 11:20 PM, LedZep77 wrote: Jay and Silent Bob in 'Dogma'
"We're prochoice, a womens body is her own f@#$en responiblity."

It's bad logic to quote a stupid movie and try and use it as an argument. It misses the point of the discussion.

[panik]

I'm pro-choice, but there has to be a law to limit how its done and how far into the pregnacy it is performed.

Sort of like gun control. I need a kid like I need an assult rifle.MMmmmmm assult rifle....and Kids. I think I have a great idea brewing here.

[swayside]

At 3/15/03 11:36 PM, panik wrote:

Sort of like gun control. I need a kid like I need an assult rifle.MMmmmmm assult rifle....and Kids. I think I have a great idea brewing here.

ha, ha...no...

that's the stupidest post yet.