House approves ban on abortion method.

Abstract

On March 20, the House voted 295-136 in favor of HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997." As a result of a last-minute substitution, the bill that was approved is identical to HR 1833, the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but failed to muster enough votes to override President Clinton's veto (see RFN V/8). HR 1122 would prohibit a physician from using the method--which, as described, suggests but does not accurately define the abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation--unless a woman's life is endangered and no other procedure would suffice. Violators would be penalized with a fine and/or up to two years in prison. In addition, the bill provides grounds on which a woman's husband (or, if she is under 18, her parents) may obtain relief in a civil suit. The substitute bill came in place of HR 929, which passed the House Judiciary Committee on March 12 (see RFN VI/5). With minor differences, that measure also targeted the abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation, and it, too, was vague enough to outlaw other second-trimester abortion methods. With the change, anti-choice leaders in Congress appear to be holding members who oppose the ban, and the president, politically accountable for maintaining their position in the face of a renewed discussion of the number of such procedures performed. Five representatives--Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Martin Frost (D-TX), Sue Kelly (R-NY), Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Peter Visclosky (D-IN)--succumbed and voted in favor of a ban after opposing it last year. With or without their switch, the margin of victory is sufficient to override the veto promised by President Clinton. But while the equivalent bill in the Senate, S 6, is likely to also be approved, it is believed that its proponents are several votes shy off a veto-proof margin. S 6 is currently under consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee.