Senate Passes Bill Limiting Abortion

[Sava]

Senate Passes Bill Limiting Abortion


By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2003; 11:55 AM


The Senate today overwhelmingly approved legislation to ban what critics describe as "partial birth" abortions, putting the measure on track for enactment -- and a court test -- after an eight-year struggle between opposing camps in the broader fight over abortion restrictions.

The vote was 64-33, with 16 Democrats joining 48 Republicans in support of the bill and 29 Democrats, three Republicans and one independent opposing it.

President Bush, who had made passage of the measure one of his top legislative priorities, hailed the Senate action. "Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity. . . . Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America," he said in a statement.

House passage is considered a virtual certainty. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, said the subcommittee will take up the bill by the end of the month and predicted the House will act on it by the end of April.

But abortion rights forces have vowed to challenge the abortion restriction in federal court, arguing that, despite some changes by its sponsors, it still fails to address faults that the Supreme Court found three years ago in a Nebraska law outlawing the procedure.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), seeks to bar doctors from committing an "overt act" to kill a partially delivered fetus. It would cover situations where "the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

The bill's opponents contend it still runs afoul of the Supreme Court ruling on several grounds, including the lack of provisions to protect a woman's health. Santorum argued that the bill is now constitutional and says it addresses the health issue by declaring that the procedure is never necessary for health reasons.

Thirty-one states have passed statutes banning the procedure, but many have not taken effect because of injunctions, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service.

Both the Senate and House have approved a ban on the controversial procedure in the past, but it was either vetoed by President Clinton or sidetracked because of the ruling in the Nebraska case.

Win or lose in the courts, the prospect of congressional enactment amounts to a political victory for anti-abortion forces, who concentrated their fire on the partial-birth procedure in recent years as their best target to chip away at abortion rights asserted in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. They cited it as an especially gruesome procedure, a strategy that proved effective in gaining the votes of some senators who regard themselves as abortion rights supporters.

In the only victory for abortion rights forces during three days of debate on the measure, the Senate approved a non-binding resolution endorsing the Roe decision and urging that it not be overturned. Santorum predicted that Roe language will be dropped from the final version of the bill.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

This is terrible. The Pro-Life camp has started down the slippery slope to spreading it's message of hypocrisy and self-righteous authoritarian "values". Although I think partial-birth abortions are wrong, it's not the governments' place to place a law against them. I could understand if millions of partial-birth abortions were taking place. But my suspicion is that not many women in the middle of labor decide they want abortions.

If anything, this crap will impede the doctor's ability to save a woman's life. Although I'm not aware of the specifics of this yet. This bill is only a stepping stone to the eventual outlaw of abortion.

There's more to come.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
The Senate today overwhelmingly approved legislation to ban what critics describe as "partial birth" abortions, putting the measure on track for enactment

Excellent! I wish the states would have done it themselves though.

[H Tower]

partial birth abortions

Do it in the first trimester or not at all. I might be willing to allow the partial birth abortion if it there was a tremendous risk to the mother or something like that but otherwise no.

[Sava]

It gets worse people....

5 Antiabortion Bills Advance in House
Va. Delegates Also Pass Vietnam Flag Bill

By Steven Ginsberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; Page B01


RICHMOND, Jan. 31 -- Virginia's House of Delegates approved a bill today that would allow health care workers to invoke a "conscience clause" if they wish to avoid participating in abortion or birth control procedures.

The measure was among five abortion limits that cleared various stages in the General Assembly, and activists on both sides of the issue said they were predicting a landmark year for abortion regulation in Virginia.

Bills that would bar a practice defined as "partial-birth infanticide," a late-term procedure commonly called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents; require parental consent for abortions; and remove a woman's mental health as a condition for allowing a late-term abortion all advanced toward final votes on the House floor.

The Senate's Education and Health Committee approved a parental consent bill for the first time. The one setback today for abortion opponents came when the committee failed to pass a bill that would have toughened the regulation of abortion clinics.

"We are very optimistic," said Victoria Cobb, director of legislative affairs for the Family Foundation, who said today was a "historic day in Virginia. We believe the voice of Virginians has been heard."

Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), who voted against Thursday's late-term abortion bill and today's parental consent and clinic regulation bills, said "there's been nothing like this, this wave of anti-choice legislation." To become law, the bills must win approval in both chambers of the assembly and receive the signature of Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).

Meanwhile today, the House and Senate advanced many other bills as they approached the halfway point in their 46-day session. The House of Delegates passed a measure that would pay tribute to the flag of the defeated Republic of Vietnam.

Delegates also approved a bill that would require doctors to inform parents when minors seek treatment for such conditions as sexually transmitted diseases and depression.

The House Privileges and Elections Committee approved a measure that would permit Virginia's governor to run for successive terms, setting up a vote on the floor. Virginia is the only state that does not allow its governor to run for consecutive terms. If approved, the legislation would apply to governors elected after Warner.

The action on abortion issues in Virginia leads a nationwide push by abortion opponents to place new restrictions on the procedure, said Leah Oliver, a policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. There are nearly 200 bills in 38 states seeking to restrict abortions, but none has as many as Virginia or has acted as quickly, Oliver said.

Abortion opponents in Maryland say they hope to advance some restrictions under Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). Ehrlich has said he would consider bills on the late-term procedure and parental consent, but he faces strong opposition in the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats.

Many of Virginia's abortion bills have been proposed before, and anti-abortion activists attributed their success this year to strong efforts by interest groups and lawmakers.

Those working to limit abortions also have been aided by last year's election of several antiabortion legislators and more supportive representation on the Health and Education Committee.

Lobbyists said legislators are mindful of those election successes as they look forward to this November, when all 140 assembly seats will be on the ballot. "They are more sensitive in an election year," Cobb said.

Supporters of the conscience clause said it would allow physicians, pharmacists and other health care professionals to opt out of providing birth control pills, morning-after pills or other medicine that they see as a form of murder.

The bill's opponents worried about what a rural resident would do if her pharmacist wouldn't fill a prescription for medication, particularly morning-after pills that could let her avoid a surgical abortion.

In brief but passionate debate on the floor of the House, supporters of a parental consent bill said it was one of "the most significant to ever come before the assembly," while others said a ban on the late-term procedure would help to stop the "killing" that occurs in Virginia.

Supporters of parental consent said it would ensure that parents have a greater say in the health and safety of their daughters. The Senate version includes a provision that allows minors to obtain consent from a judge if their parents refuse to allow an abortion.

Opponents said a consent law would lead to back-alley abortions for those afraid to tell their parents that they were pregnant.

Warner vetoed a late-term ban last year, and he has signaled his intent to do so again unless it allows exceptions for the health of a mother, which the assembly versions do not. He also said Thursday that he opposed the consent bill.

The Senate narrowly upheld Warner's late-term veto last year, but abortion opponents said they believe they have the votes to override one this year.

Despite the possibility of several new restrictions, abortion rights activists were pleased with the defeat of the clinic regulation bill, because they said its tough regulations would have forced most abortion clinics to close.

"It was the most important vote in the General Assembly so far on whether abortion rights would still be available to the women of Virginia," said Bennet Greenberg, director of government relations at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, an abortion rights group.

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax), sponsor of the bill, said he would try to "come up with an alternate scheme that would improve the health and safety in those clinics. It can be done, and it can be done in this session."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

This is terrible. In this next round of bills, there is a piece that allows doctors to violate the doctor-patient privilage in order to inform the parents of minors that they have been treated for STD's.

What's next? Is Bush going to form a new sector of law-enforcement called the "Pregnancy Police"? They go around making sure women that are pregnant, stay pregnant. Or else they get charged with murder.



This isn't about the morality of abortion, it's about the government taking away the right for woman, parents, and doctors to make those decisions for themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

w00t!
About time this ban on partial birth abortions got through.

If anything, this crap will impede the doctor's ability to save a woman's life.

Sava- the bill includes an exception to save the life of the mother.

I could understand if millions of partial-birth abortions were taking place. But my suspicion is that not many women in the middle of labor decide they want abortions.

So murder is ok, so long as fewer than a million are done?

[Sava]

Originally posted by H Tower
partial birth abortions

Do it in the first trimester or not at all. I might be willing to allow the partial birth abortion if it there was a tremendous risk to the mother or something like that but otherwise no.

That's not the point H Tower. I don't like partial-birth abortions either. But this terrible archaic legislature bans all of it. Even if the mother will die. Here is my point. THERE AREN'T LOTS OF UNNECESSARY PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS HAPPENING! It's unneeded legislation. And only a political tool to push back and restrict abortion.

[Sava]

So murder is ok, so long as fewer than a million are done?

The number of unneeded partial-birth abortions is so small, I bet I could count them on my fingers. It's unnecessary legislation... I can't say that enough. It's not that they are okay, in fact, I disagree with them in their entirety (partial birth abortion without medical need). But this isn't about saving lives, it's about pushing through a sick, authoritarian agenda.

[H Tower]

i don't see it like that all, you can't distort this into banning all abortions

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Excellent! I wish the states would have done it themselves though.

yeah, and kept slavery around

[Sava]

Originally posted by H Tower
i don't see it like that all, you can't distort this into banning all abortions

That's what's going to happen. Did you read the second article?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
yeah, and kept slavery around

You caught me.

[Ben Kenobi]

"An estimated 2,200 dilation and extraction, or D&X, abortions were conducted in 2000, said researchers with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, who surveyed all known U.S. abortion providers during the past two years."

Define 'necessary,' Sava.

[DinoDoc]

Where is Doc Strangelove when you need him?

[Sava]

Necessary as in needed to save the woman's life.

[Arrian]

I'm generally pro-choice, Sava, but I don't see the reason for hysterics over this partial-birth abortion ban.

Oh, yeah, you're Sava. My mistake. I forgot.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Sava:

Continuing on with the second post:

Point 1:

"Virginia's House of Delegates approved a bill today that would allow health care workers to invoke a "conscience clause" if they wish to avoid participating in abortion or birth control procedures."

Point 2:

"Supporters of parental consent said it would ensure that parents have a greater say in the health and safety of their daughters. The Senate version includes a provision that allows minors to obtain consent from a judge if their parents refuse to allow an abortion."


Regarding the conscience clause:

Doctors are not required to accede to patient's demands for treatment, especially for a non-medically necessary procedure.

Parental Consent:

Children who are minors have to obtain consent for every other surgical procedure except abortion. Why are they able to consent for abortion, and not for something else?

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Sava
Did you read the second article?

virginia's messed up. *shrug*

[Ramo]

Sava- the bill includes an exception to save the life of the mother.

Source?

[Ben Kenobi]

Necessary as in needed to save the woman's life.

Then why are you opposed to the ban?
The ban allows for this exception!

[Sava]

Arrian: Hey without nuts like me, there wouldn't be any freedoms at all.

obiwan, the consent for abortion part doesn't bother me. It's the consent for treatment of STD's part that does.

[Traianvs]

Well of course, America's big enough for one or two extra inhabitants...

In belgium, abortion should be encouraged

10 million ugly bastards is about 9 million too much! (of course, compared to the tiny amount of land we own...)

the human race is simply a larger version of a foul virus

[Boris Godunov]

The consent for treating STDs part is ABOMINABLE. So some teen who is sexually active and wants to hide it from his parents is going to forego being treated and probably spread the STD to others more.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2377444

The current proposal would allow the procedure to save a woman's life -- even though sponsors of the ban say it is never necessary for any reason. Bill sponsor Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, called it an "evil, heinous procedure that is outside the bounds of medicine."

Sava:

It's the consent for treatment of STD's part that does.

They'll still be able to get a judicial bypass...

[Ramo]

Yep, just a way to insure that STD's will be ignored instead of treated. Thank God for the morality police.

[St Leo]

Sava

[Shi Huangdi]

Partial Birth Abortion is never nessecary to save the mother's life.

to the Senate

[Ramo]

What are the exact provisions. Because this quote:
""The Senate passed a law that they know is unconstitutional and endangers women's health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which won a Supreme Court case striking down a similar Nebraska abortion ban three years ago."

seems to imply that the exemptions for the mother's health aren't adequate.

[Sava]

Partial Birth Abortion is never nessecary to save the mother's life.

Where exactly did you get your medical degree huh? Or is this opinion based on your years of experiences in obstetrics? Let me guess, abortion is just a leftist conspiracy

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The consent for treating STDs part is ABOMINABLE. So some teen who is sexually active and wants to hide it from his parents is going to forego being treated and probably spread the STD to others more.

Exactly!

In a related subject, abstinence-only teaching, pushed by the same morons who want to ban abortion, does more to increase abortions and the spread of STD's by not teaching teens and young adults how to live responsible sex lives when they get older.

If the Pro-Life camp wanted to decrease abortions, they'd educate and promote the use of contraceptives rather than trying to take away reproductive rights.

[loinburger]

I propose that Sava be banned from appending that godawful rolleyes smilie to his posts.

But, when in Rome...

Sure Sava, Congress is being sooooo authoritarian by taking away the "right" of a mother to murder her baby. Before you know it, they'll be making thievery illegal too!