On July 24, the House approved, 274-151, a bill (H.R. 4965) that would prohibit “partial-birth abortions.” The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on July 17 (see The Source, 7/19/02).
Sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the bill is designed to prohibit a specific abortion procedure performed during the second and third trimesters. The bill would make an exception if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. Physicians who violate the ban would be subject to two years’ imprisonment and/or fines. The bill also contains a number of congressional findings that state “partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother.”
Opponents say the bill would prohibit a number of abortion procedures because the definition of the procedure is broadly worded. They also contend that the measure is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
Congress considered similar bans during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. Twice the bans were vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that would have banned “partial-birth abortions” because the law did not include a health exception and because the bill placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose because of the broadly worded definition.
The House debated the bill under a closed rule, which prohibited Members from offering amendments to the legislation.
Arguing in support of the measure, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) said, “Although language banning this procedure has been struck down in the past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to address the Court’s concerns.”
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) disagreed, saying that the bill “contained the same two flaws” as the Nebraska law. “It fails to include an exception to protect maternal health, and it places an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion prior to viability by banning the most common second trimester abortion procedure,” she said.
In addressing the health exception, Rep. Chabot argued, “No matter how narrowly drafted a health exception might be, it gives the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial-birth abortion might be performed, and abortionists have demonstrated that they can justify any abortion on this ground.”
Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) agreed, saying, “Congress has tried to end this unnecessary and horrific procedure, and instead we have entered into a debate of semantics about what this procedure should be called, or if it is ever necessary.” She continued, “This procedure actually co-opts the birth process to take the child’s life.”
In expressing her opposition to the bill, Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) said, “This is, in my estimation, the worst bill that has come before this Congress.” She continued, “It is an absolutely horrendous insult to the women of America to think that we would carry an infant through pregnancy and arbitrarily and lightly choose to take that infant’s life. It is not done. Women do not do it.”
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said, “The point of this bill is to make it legally risky to perform any abortion because the physician cannot be sure he will not be prosecuted. That is why the courts have struck down these late-term abortion bans time and time again.”
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee and report it out with an amendment that would have made an exception for the health and life of the pregnant woman. The motion was defeated, 187-241.
