Related articles and links |  1 of 2

In spite of the strong vote in the House of Representatives against third-trimester, "partial-birth" abortions, a presidential veto may set back this first effort by Congress to prohibit an abortion procedure.

On November 1, the House approved the ban with a two-thirds majority (288 to 139). The Senate, however, delayed a vote on its version of the bill November 8 by sending it to the Judiciary Committee, where it is uncertain what amendments, if any, will be attached to the bill before it returns to the Senate floor this month.

Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) led the effort to scuttle the bill in the Senate. He and two other Judiciary Committee members, Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Hank Brown (R-Colo.), are expected to attempt to gut the bill by amending it to include an exception for the mother's health. Many courts have interpreted the mother's "health" to include the psychological well-being of the mother, which can be applied to virtually all abortions. The House version of the bill, sponsored by Charles Canady (R-Fla.), makes an exception only when there is "reasonable doubt" that the mother's "life" is in danger.

Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), sponsor of the Senate version, says opponents of the bill are trying to dilute the gruesome reality of partial-birth abortions. "They don't want to see what happens in this grisly, disgusting procedure," he says. "They don't want the American people to see it."

Smith says proponents of the bill are using the delay to build support to ban this abortion technique. "The more people see of this procedure, the less they like it," he says. As Smith described the procedure in detail, women walked off the Senate floor, and gallery visitors winced and covered their ears.

ENDING A LIFE: Partial-birth abortion, also known as dilation and extraction ("D and X"), is a procedure for ending late-term pregnancies: The mother visits the abortion facility on three successive days. On the first two days, her cervix is mechanically dilated. On the third day, the abortionist extracts the baby, feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all but the head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into the base of the baby's skull, and a suction catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is removed, collapsing the skull and making it easier to deliver.

Opponents of the legislation charge it is part of a pro-life strategy to overturn abortion rights. In Washington, press conferences have been held to defend the procedure on the basis of its usefulness in ending pregnancies in cases of severe fetal deformity. In addition, some liberal columnists have defended it. Ellen Goodman, in a mid-November column, commented that the procedure is "sometimes the best of the rotten options—the one that may best enable a woman to have another baby."

Officially, the American Medical Association (AMA) is neutral on whether to ban the procedure, even though an AMA study committee has endorsed the ban.

Two physicians, Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, and James McMahon of Los Angeles (who died Oct. 28), have openly acknowledged performing partial-birth abortions. Haskell told American Medical News in a 1993 interview that about 80 percent of his D and X abortions are "purely elective."

McMahon indicated in his report to Congress that even in the "nonelective" abortions he performs, his criteria are very liberal, including maternal depression, maternal youth, and non-life-threatening fetal deformities such as cleft palate.

next page... |  1 of 2

December 11 1995, Vol. 39, No. 14