The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
(11-16-2003)

President Bush has signed the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003". Some have applauded it, others have denounced it. I will be glad if a few children are saved from death, but since its immediate applicability is in question, it may not even do that, at least for some time. We cannot let this celebrated action blind us to the need for continued work, and we should consider several important matters related to it. In quotation marks below are some of the Congressional findings from the bill, with my observation added after them. I am indebted to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Judie Brown of the American Life League, and others whose analyses I have read in developing my thoughts.

• "Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure." - All abortions pose a serious risk to the health of the child undergoing the procedure.

• "The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman." - Does this mean that women and doctors can "achieve the desired outcome" simply by using another abortion procedure?

• "A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy." - Is helping women "terminate a pregnancy" safely a noble goal?

• "Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life." - If children are human from the moment of conception, as indicated by Biblical and medical evidence, then no bright line exists between abortion and infanticide! Killing a child before or after birth is wrong, regardless of the method used. The distinction proposed by this bill does not promote respect for human life. Rather, it says that children in the womb are not worthy of protection.

• Congress prohibits physicians from performing partial-birth abortions "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce". - Does this allow doctors to kill the children of in-state women with impunity? Not only is this bad constitutional reasoning, but it opens the door for government interference in legitimate medical practices.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the development of this bill came in March of this year when the U.S. Senate passed a terrible version of it. The Democrats succeeded in adding an amendment to the bill expressing the "sense of the Senate" regarding Roe v. Wade. It stated that "the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right and such decision should not be overturned." The problem is that the Republicans in the Senate passed the bill with that amendment still attached.

Eleven Democrats and six Republicans voted for the amendment and then for the final bill. Five Democrats and 41 Republicans voted against the amendment and for the final bill. Twenty-nine Democrats, three Republicans, and one Independent (Mr. Jeffords) voted for the amendment and then against the final bill. (Four Senators did not vote at all for one or the other.) Was this a Democrat trap? Yes, of course. Many of them did not want to vote for the bill at all, but they passed a sneaky amendment to put Republican Senators in a bind. If those Senators voted against the final bill, they would come across as not supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion. If they voted for the final bill, then they said that they supported Roe v. Wade.

In June the House passed the partial-birth abortion ban without that rotten amendment. Republicans in the Senate wished that a conference committee would eliminate the amendment, and the final version of the bill did drop that addendum. The problem is, when you vote for a bill, you're voting for the whole thing. Every Senator who voted for the original Senate bill indicated that he supported the implications of the Roe v. Wade decision.

We can collaborate with others to facilitate adoption, to care for unwed mothers, and to otherwise help women and children. We cannot compromise with the enemy in promoting and performing abortion as a valid alternative. Let's aim high. Our goal is not to have trained abortion doctors, clean abortuarys, waiting periods, or even parental consent. Our goal is to protect life! The "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" addresses an imporant issue. However, since it is based on faulty legal, medical, and moral reasoning, it may end up doing more harm than good.

For further reading:

Full text of the bill

Ron Paul's June 4th Speech in House

Response from the American Life League