Copyright 2000 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Chicago
Sun-Times
April 05, 2000, WEDNESDAY, FINAL
MARKETS
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 379 words
HEADLINE:
Abortion bill passes House;
'Partial-birth' ban invites Clinton veto
BYLINE: BY DAVID ESPO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Courting a third presidential veto, the Republican-controlled House today
approved legislation banning "partial birth" abortions.
The vote was 287-141. While the margin was big enough to overturn a
threatened veto by President Clinton, the Senate vote on a companion bill last
fall was not. The vote came after several hours of well-worn debate. Supporters
claimed the measure would ban a barbaric and unnecessary procedure while
opponents contended it was a vaguely worded stalking horse for an
unconstitutional effort to ban all abortions.
"Everybody in this room
knows this is wrong. It is not legally or morally defensible," said Rep. Rick
Hill (R-Mont.), graphically describing a procedure in which he said a fetus is
partially delivered, then its "brains are extracted with the suction device."
"Consider our common humanity," appealed Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.),
the lead supporter of the measure.
Countered Rep. Louise Slaughter
(D-N.Y.): "Proponents of this bill are not just chipping away at the right to
choose, they are taking a jackhammer to it."
Rep. Diana DeGette
(D-Colo.) accused the GOP of trying to exploit a "wedge issue in this election
year," a reference to the extent to which the measure causes many Democrats to
part company with organizations that support abortion rights.
Passage of
the bill never was in doubt, but opponents held out hope that support would be
less than the two-thirds majority needed to override a threatened veto. The
House has overridden two previous vetoes on the issue, but the Senate has
sustained Clinton's rejection each time, and is expected to do so again.
The Senate approved a similar bill last fall, and a compromise is
expected before fall. The only difference between the two bills is a
Senate-passed provision -- engineered by
Democrats -- declaring that the high court's Roe vs. Wade ruling in
1973 established "an important constitutional right" and should not be
overturned.
Sponsors say the measure is designed to abolish a certain
type of late-term procedure in which a fetus is partially delivered, then
aborted.
Opponents counter that, as written, the bill would apply far
more broadly, undermining the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade that granted
women the right to abortions.
GRAPHIC: ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOAD-DATE: April 05, 2000 
