United States bans partial-birth abortions.

Washington D.C. -- A seven-year-old crusade against partial-birth abortion, which began in the U.S.A in 1995 when the Republicans attained a majority in the House of Representatives, ended Nov. 5, 2003, when President George Bush signed legislation banning the procedure. The Senate had passed the new law by a vote of 64-34 on October 21, following its 281-142 victory in the House three weeks earlier.

The bill was the third try in banning the procedure, also known formerly as intact dilation and extraction. It is performed in the last trimester of pregnancy. Two previous attempts were vetoed by then President Bill Clinton.

The law was slow in clearing Congress due to delaying tactics by pro-abortion supporters who see it as a first strike in a campaign to erode abortion "rights." Opponents charged that the definition of the practice was too vaguely defined, making it unclear to doctors which procedures are illegal. Because the bill contains no exception regarding the health of the mother, President Bill Clinton opposed it during his term.

Senator Rick Santorum (R. Pa.), chief sponsor of the bill, met these objections by tightening up the definition and producing findings discounting the "health-of-the-mother" canard. Provision for an exception protecting the life of the mother was retained in the legislation. Any doctor who violates the ban is liable for a prison term of up to 2 years.

"Abortion-rights" proponents have not been slow in initiating court challenges to the new law. They are taking their cue from Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who claimed: "For the first time in history, Congress is banning a procedure ... considered medically necessary by physicians!" On the same day as the signing, a Nebraska judge issued an injunction to block implementation of the law; this was soon followed by legal challenges in California, Omaha, and New York, all claiming that the ban is unconstitutional.

Although President Bush has stated that he does not believe U.S. culture has changed to the extent of accepting a ban on all abortions, his opponents are convinced that the new law is just the first step in rolling back the (infamous) Roe V. Wade decision of 1973. "Abortion rights" could therefore become a crucial issue in the 2004 presidential race. Bush has pledged to "vigorously defend" the new legislation.

Words of caution on premature rejoicing come from Thomas A. Drolesky:

"As I have written over and over again in the last eight years, the recently passed Congressional Legislation conditionally banning partial-birth abortions is another morally flawed effort that will wind up saving no innocent lives. Not only is there the needless and immoral "life of the mother" exception contained in the bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush, but the bill ignores the fact that there are two other ways (hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation) by which children may be killed in their mothers' wombs in the later stages of pregnancy. If the baby-killers cannot use partial-birth abortions to kill a child, they will simply resort to one of the other two methods (which might also include saline solution abortion if the child is young enough to be killed by this method).

The passage of this morally wrong legislation is already being used by careerist politicians to say that we've done all we can do to stem abortion in the midst of our current circumstances. "The country is not ready to ban all abortions," as President Bush noted in his press conference of October 28, 2003. Well, the country never will be ready to ban abortions if those who call themselves pro-life are not completely, totally, one hundred percent pro-life and do not exert all of the influence they can to change hearts and minds and to change unjust laws and court conditions."

(Communique, Nov. 11/03)