Copyright 1999 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
St.
Louis Post-Dispatch
July 13, 1999, Tuesday, FIVE STAR LIFT
EDITION
Correction Appended
SECTION:
NEWS, Pg. A7
LENGTH: 629 words
HEADLINE: GOV. CARNAHAN VETOES BILL BANNING
LATE-TERM ABORTION PROCEDURES
BYLINE:
Bill Bell Jr.; Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau
DATELINE: JEFFERSON CITY
BODY:
Gov. Mel Carnahan vetoed the Infants' Protection Act on Monday,
saying the measure would ban many legal abortion procedures.
At a news conference resembling a campaign pep rally, Carnahan offered a
new argument against what he called the "dangerously flawed" measure, saying it
could give someone who kills an abortion doctor an extra legal defense.
The veto sets up a bitter political fight in September, when abortion
opponents have promised to override his decision. The veto also will likely
become a top issue in Carnahan's campaign against Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., an
ardent abortion opponent. The two will likely face each other in the November
2000 election. Abortion foes said Carnahan was using "scare tactics" to drum up
support for his position.
"The governor is really dredging the bottom of
the barrel to come up with some far-fetched reactions," said Lou DeFeo,
executive director and general counsel of the Missouri Catholic Conference.
"He's playing spin doctor."
The measure would create a new crime of
infanticide, allowing prosecutors to bring charges against anyone who commits an
"overt act" to kill a fetus once the fetus' navel or chin has passed a woman's
cervix. The crime would be a Class A felony, punishable by 10 to 30 years in pr
ison or life in prison.
Proponents say the bill would protect infants as
they are being born. Opponents, such as Carnahan, say the measure bans abortion
procedures commonly done in the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy.
About
75 people - mostly women wearing "Thank You Mel" buttons - filled Carnahan's
office as he announced his veto. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Dee Joyce-Hayes also
made an appearance at the event. She argued that under the measure, anyone who
kills an abortion doctor could defend themselves by saying they were trying to
stop one of the banned procedures.
She said the bill also failed several
other constitutional tests set by federal courts. The bill lacks a health
exception for the mother, she said, and she sees the measure as a clear effort
to set up a court case on the issue.
"Missouri can't secede from the
Union and go out and do its own thing," she said. "I think (the bill) is full of
holes."
DeFeo said the bill would defend doctors who inadvertently hurt
a child during delivery.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Ted House, D-St.
Charles, said he would try to keep the veto-override debate focused on the
proposed law and not on politics.
However, minutes after Carnahan's news
conference ended, the Missouri Republican Party and House Minority Floor Leader
Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City, issued press releases deriding the governor's veto.
While the bill commanded large majorities in both chambers when it
passed, that doesn't automatically translate into a veto override. Some
legislators are likely to side with the governor out of partisan loyalty and
legislative tradition.
In 1997, the Senate rebuffed an override attempt
on a similar abortion bill.
This September, the first test of the
override will come in the House, where supporters are confident they have the
109 votes to override.
Votes are once again much closer in the Senate,
where the measure passed 27-6 in May. Rural Democrats up for re-election next
year, such as Sen. Jerry Howard of Dexter, could be key.
Susan Klein,
director of Missouri Right to Life - the state's largest anti-abortion group -
said her organization will start a new chapter in Howard's Bootheel district
this summer.
M'Evie Mead, a lobbyist for the Missouri National Abortion
and Reproductive Rights Action League - who brought a busload of people to the
event - said she planned to bombard lawmakers with information. "We're going to
shout from the treetops about how bad this bill is," she said.
CORRECTION:
RECTION - Correction published July 14,
1999 - The headline on this story about a veto of an abortion bill is incorrect.
The bill did not specify whether it would involve only late-term abortions, and
critics contended it could have been used to ban abortions early in a pregnancy.
LOAD-DATE: July 15, 1999 
