REUTER

October 08, 1997

U.S. House approves 'partial birth' abortion ban

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A ban on so-called ``partial birth'' abortion got overwhelming approval Wednesday from the U.S. House, paving the way for an expected presidential veto.

President Clinton has said he will veto the measure, which would prohibit the controversial procedure except in cases where the woman's life is in danger. Clinton has favored including another exception for a woman's serious health problems.

The House vote of 296-132 to approve the ban is six more than needed to override a veto, and incorporates amendments approved last May by the U.S. Senate, which did not then have enough votes to force the bill into law despite Clinton's disapproval.

But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said before the House vote that chances for a Senate override were ``pretty good ... within a vote or two'' at this point.

Some abortion rights proponents have accused Republicans of trying to draw out the debate on this issue so that any final approval or veto would coincide with next year's congressional elections, but Lott dismissed this.

``We would hope to get that done this year, if at all possible,'' Lott said at a news conference. ``... I'm not one that said 'oh, good, let's have this going on all next year in the Senate right up until the election'.''

In partial birth abortion, also known as intact dilation and extraction, a fetus is partially removed from the uterus feet-first, the fetal brain is suctioned out and then the rest of the fetus is removed.

Used in the later months of pregnancy, the procedure accounts for a small proportion of all abortions performed in the United States -- no exact figures are available -- but has been a rallying point for abortion foes.

The House bill's author, Rep. Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, used now-familiar line drawings illustrating the procedure to bolster his arguments.

``The president's proposal is a sham,'' Canady said. ``His purported ban (including a health exception) would not protect one of these babies ... We will not allow the president to change the subject from the disturbing facts of partial birth abortion as he has attempted to do.''

Supporters of the House measure also argued that this procedure is never medically necessary, and that it is most frequently used electively on healthy babies and healthy women.

Those who back the ban also pointed to an endorsement of the measure by the American Medical Association (AMA).

However, opponents said the Senate-passed amendments were crafted to court the AMA endorsement and that the language protected doctors but failed to protect a woman's life and health.

``The Senate amendments are window dressing that provide cover to doctors while leaving women frankly out in the cold,'' Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, told the House.

The bill provides for a maximum two-year prison term for those who perform the procedure, but the amendments offer defendants a hearing before a state medical board on whether the procedure was needed to save the woman's life, and information from that hearing can be used at trial.

Activists on both sides of the abortion debate acknowledged that 17 states have enacted similar bans on the procedure, and that 11 of these bans have been challenged in state courts.

END QUOTE

Associated Press

October 9, 1997

Late-Term Abortion Bill Gets OK

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican and Democratic supporters of a ban on a late-term abortion procedure are appealing to President Clinton to sign the measure instead of vetoing it again.

Clinton rejected a similar bill last year, but Congress failed to override him. He has promised to veto the latest ban, which Congress was sending back to him Wednesday after a 296-132 House vote.

``Will he go down in history as the president whose veto had to be overridden in order to protect helpless infants from a brutal death?'' asked Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., prime sponsor of the bill.

``The American people are firmly on our side,'' added Rep. Tim Roemer of Indiana, one of 79 Democrats who helped pass the Republican bill.

But the White House said Clinton will reject any abortion ban that doesn't include an exception to allow doctors to use the abortion procedure when a woman faces health risks from a continued pregnancy.

``The president's position has not changed,'' said spokesman Barry Toiv.

Clinton and abortion rights groups have insisted on the exception to protect a woman's health but Republicans say it would render the ban meaningless.

The bill would ban the procedure -- which involves the partial delivery of a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal followed by the drainage of its skull -- except when needed to save a woman's life.

The House vote was more than enough to support an attempt to override a veto, though prospects for enacting the ban over Clinton's objections depend on the Senate.

An override attempt last year fell short in the Senate. It has passed the ban twice, although never by the two-thirds majority required for override votes in the 100-member chamber.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Wednesday he thought there was a ``real opportunity'' to overturn the veto this year.

Canady was less upbeat. ``We face a battle in the Senate,'' he told reporters after the vote. ``We're going to be working just as hard as we can to get the additional three votes to override the president's veto.''

The House passed the bill, 295-136, in March. The Senate amended and passed the bill, 64-36, in May but fell three votes short of the total needed for an override.

Supporters of the ban are banking on appeals to Clinton.

``My hope is that the president will find it in his heart to say we don't do this to baby boys and baby girls,'' said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.

Meanwhile, the House also took a tough position for the second straight day on an unrelated abortion issue that has delayed progress for months on two important foreign affairs bills.

By a 236-190 vote Wednesday, the House agreed to insist that a bill restructuring the State Department include a ban on money for international family-planning groups that promote or perform abortions.

A 233-194 vote Tuesday confirmed the House position on a similar provision in the foreign aid spending bill.

The Senate has rejected the House provision on both bills and negotiations to work out a compromise on the two measures has been delayed.

------

The bill is H.R. 1122.

END QUOTE

REUTER

October 10, 1997

Clinton vetoes ``partial-birth'' abortion ban

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - President Clinton Friday vetoed legislation to ban so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions, setting the stage for an attempted override by the Republican-controlled Congress.

It was the second time Clinton has vetoed legislation to ban the rarely used late-term abortion procedure. He said in his veto message he was vetoing the bill because Congress failed to make an exception to protect women's health.

``I have asked the Congress repeatedly, for almost two years, to send me legislation that includes a limited exception for the small number of compelling cases where use of this procedure is necessary to avoid serious health consequences,'' Clinton said. ``I believe the Congress should work in a bipartisan manner to fashion such legislation.''

He said he would sign such a bill.

The House passed the ban on Wednesday by a vote of 296-132, six more than needed to override a veto.

``We have the votes to override his veto in the House, and we will work tirelessly to get the last few votes needed in the Senate,'' said Rep. Charles Canady, a Florida Republican who is author of the House bill.

The House bill incorporates amendments approved last May by the Senate, which did not then have enough votes to force the bill into law despite Clinton's disapproval.

But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said before the House vote that chances for a Senate override were ``pretty good ... within a vote or two'' at this point.''

Some abortion rights proponents have accused Republicans of trying to draw out the debate on this issue so that any final approval or veto would coincide with next year's congressional elections.

Lott dismissed this, saying he would hope for an override attempt this year.

Clinton vetoed an earlier ban on the abortions in April 1996.

In a partial-birth abortion, which is also known as intact dilation and extraction, a fetus is partially removed from the uterus feet-first, the fetal brain is suctioned out and then the rest of the fetus is removed.

The National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, criticized the veto as subjecting ``thousands of living babies'' to a procedure opponents have criticized as gruesome and violent.

Similar bans on the procedure have been enacted in 17 states and 11 of these bans have been challenged in state courts.

END QUOTE

Associated Press

October 11, 1997

Clinton Vetoes Abortion Restriction

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Conservatives are mobilizing for what one activist calls the ``mother of all veto-override battles'' following President Clinton's latest rejection of a ban on a type of late-term abortion.

One Republican lawmaker said Clinton had earned the title ``Abortion President.''

Clinton, who signed the veto papers privately and without fanfare Friday, chastised Congress for ignoring his oft-stated demand that the partial-delivery procedure be allowed in cases where a woman's health was endangered.

``As a result of this congressional indifference to women's health, I cannot in good conscience ... sign this legislation,'' the president said in his veto message to the House.

Clinton acknowledged that the procedure ``appears inhumane.'' But he said that ``to eliminate it without taking into consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use may be necessary would be even more inhumane.''

Last year, Clinton vetoed similar legislation for the same reason. It was an election-year issue then, and he had an emotional veto ceremony surrounded by women who testified to the necessity of the late-term procedure.

Congress could not muster the votes to override him then. The Senate passed this year's bill in May by three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override his veto.

The House's separate vote on Wednesday, 296-132, was by a margin that would be more than enough to override. But both chambers must vote by two-thirds majorities.

Although Clinton prevailed last year, Republicans revived the bill after learning the procedure they call ``partial-birth abortion'' was more common and used earlier in pregnancy than previously believed.

The legislation would ban the surgery -- which involves the partial delivery of a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal followed by the drainage of its skull -- except when needed to save a woman's life.

It would not permit such an abortion even when the pregnancy jeopardizes a woman's health. There is a ``small group of women in tragic circumstances who need (the procedure) to avert death or serious injury,'' Clinton said.

Within moments of Friday's veto, Don Hodel, president of the politically potent Christian Coalition, said in a statement: ``We will now join forces with that vast majority of Americans who strongly believe the Constitution protects the life of these fully developed, innocent human beings ... . This will be the mother of all veto-override battles.''

Echoing the graphic and emotional debate that surrounds the issue, Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., chief sponsor of the House bill, said: ``How could jamming scissors into the back of a baby's head be required for the `health' of the mother? It makes no sense.''

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said that Clinton had, through his second veto, earned the title ``Abortion President.''

``For nearly five years, President Clinton has pushed to make abortion available at any time, in every place, at any cost,'' Smith said.

He and other supporters of the ban compare the procedure to infanticide and insist there is no medically justifiable reason to use it. They also maintain that the procedure, more complicated that first-trimester abortions, is common and often elective.

Abortion-rights supporters countered Friday that the Republican majority was hunting for a campaign issue to use in the 1998 elections and was playing politics with women's health. Some also said the focus on one procedure wouldn't do anything to reduce abortions nationwide.

``The Republicans could have sent the president a signable bill,'' said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. ``They refused to compromise because they want a political issue they can use in the next election year.''

To bolster that claim, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, issued a statement quoting former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed as calling the vetoed legislation ``a gold-plated issue'' for the 1998 midterm elections. END QUOTE

Associated Press

October 12, 1997

Abortion Veto Vote May Face Delay

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't look for House and Senate Republicans to make a rapid attempt to overturn President Clinton's veto of legislation banning certain late-term abortions.

They'll wait until next year, closer to the 1998 congressional elections, before forcing Democrats to cast their next vote on the politically sensitive issue.

On a lopsided House vote of 296-132, the Republican-controlled Congress sent the legislation to Clinton's desk last week banning so-called ``partial birth'' abortions. He vetoed it Friday, with considerably less fanfare than accompanied his rejection of a similar measure in 1996.

The bill would have banned the procedure -- which involves the partial delivery of a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal followed by drainage of its skull -- except when needed to save a woman's life.

Clinton also favors an exception in cases in which a mother's health is endangered. ``As a result of this congressional indifference to women's health, I cannot in good conscience'' approve the bill, he said in his veto notice.

Majority Republicans can attempt to override whenever they wish. Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that won't be until next year -- possibly around the anniversary of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, possibly around Mother's Day or some other symbolic date.

The issue is politically useful for Republicans. Abortion rights groups oppose the measure, and that forces Democratic lawmakers customarily aligned with those groups to cast a difficult vote.

An override seems likely in the House, where the 296-132 margin of passage was more than the two-thirds majority necessary. The Senate earlier approved the measure on a vote of 64-36 -- three shy of a veto-proof majority.

``The president is confident his position can be sustained,'' White House spokesman Mike McCurry said Friday.

Abortion foes have been gaining strength gradually in the Senate on the issue. Three senior Democrats, including the party's leader, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, switched sides and voted for the ban last spring after opposing it earlier.

The National Right To Life Committee says legislatures in several states have passed statewide bans in recent months -- although some laws them have been blocked by the courts -- making members of Congress from those states obvious targets for the legislation's supporters.

These include Sens. Max Cleland, D-Ga., Carol Mosely-Braun, D-Ill., Max Baucus, D-Mont., Bob Kerrey, D-Neb. and John Chafee, R-R.I.

In the House last week, Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., swung behind the measure after past opposition. In a statement, he said he ``deferred to the wisdom'' of the Georgia Legislature, which passed a state law on the subject; the governor, who signed it; and the American Medical Association, which supported the most recent version of the bill after winning concessions from its sponsors.

END QUOTE