The Senate early this morning sustained the President's veto of H.R.1122, the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. The vote was 64-36, with all senators maintaining their previously stated positions on the bill. The action was a welcome victory for reproductive rights supporters in a long season of critical losses.
Although this is the second abortion procedures ban which the President has vetoed, it was particularly objectionable because of vague wording which held the potential of affecting virtually all pre- and post-viability abortion procedures. The proposed language stated: "partial-birth abortion means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living fetus vaginally prior to killing the fetus and completing the delivery."
If H.R.1122 would have become law, many doctors would most likely cease providing abortion services for fear of being fined and jailed, with the strong possibility of also losing their medical licenses. Such a ban would have placed at greater risk women needing an abortion because of severe fetal deformity or serious personal health consequences, by limiting their options to procedures known to have more serious side affects. No exception to preserve the health of the woman was provided for in H.R. 1122 -- a protection that is provided for under Roe v. Wade.
Please thank your senator for their vote to sustain the veto and, if s/he is up for re-election this year, they deserve your active support. Those who voted correctly are: Sens. Akaka, Baucus Bingaman, Boxer, Bryan, Bumpers, Chafee (R), Cleland, Collins (R), Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Inouye, Jeffords (R), Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Murray, Reed, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Snowe (R), Toricelli, Wellstone and Wyden -- all Democrats unless otherwise noted.
The true purpose behind our opponents pushing this dreadful ban is to not just outlaw certain abortion procedures, but to target moderate and liberal senators for defeat. Their belief is that sufficient numbers of voters who swallow opponents' propaganda on this issue will find the matter repugnant enough to turn incumbents (who opposed the ban) out of office. However, that strategy seemed to have had little impact in the 1996 elections when no incumbents lost because of their opposition to a ban. Nothing can be taken for granted, though, and the November elections may bring a different result.
Abortion rights opponents have made enormous gains in capturing seats in Congress and the various state legislatures. By some counts, 79 of 99 state legislative bodies and both houses of Congress have anti-abortion rights majorities. And, as long as abortion rights opponents control legislative bodies, the issue will be re-visited next year and the next until they win. Twenty-eight states have passed so-called partial-birth abortion bans; 20 of which have been challenged in court, with nineteen states' laws enjoined or severely limited. Seventeen courts (in AK, AZ, AR, FL, ID, IL, IA, KY, LA, MI, MT, NE, NJ, OH, RI, WV and WI) have issued temporary or permanent injunctions to prevent the laws from taking effect because they are clearly unconstitutional. Six of the enjoyed states used the same language as the vetoed federal bill.. Two states -- WA and CO -- have abortion procedures bans on the November ballots.
The latest attack by abortion rights opponents focused on the doctor-patient
relationship, arguing that the abortion procedure ban should not remain
a strictly medical decision in consultation with the woman, a central concept
of Roe v. Wade
and other court decisions on abortion rights. Abortion rights supporters
can expect to see these and other attacks from every direction to continue.
We may have won the battle on the abortion procedures ban, but we are very
much on the defensive.