Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
April 5, 2000, Wednesday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A18
LENGTH: 352 words
HEADLINE:
Partial-Birth Posturing
BODY:
THE HOUSE OF
Representatives just can't give up the presumed rhetorical advantages of voting
to ban what it calls "partial-birth" abortions. The measure is
probably unconstitutional and certainly bad policy, but the House is to take it
up today for the third time in five years.
House leaders yesterday
barred the introduction of a more temperate alternative bill, sponsored by
Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer along with Reps. James Greenwood of Pennsylvania and
Ellen Tauscher of California. Never mind that the Supreme Court is now weighing
the constitutionality of a Nebraska abortion ban substantially similar to the
House bill and is likely to rule before the current legislative session ends--a
circumstance that argues for deference or at least caution in pressing a federal
law. Never mind that Congress has failed twice before to pass partial-birth
statutes by veto-proof majorities, or that the Senate this session has already
fallen short of the two-thirds mark in passing its version, making a promised
third White House veto likely to be sustained. Add the annoyance of Republican
House moderates facing close races in pro-choice districts and you have a vote
that's long on ideology and precious short on actual governance.
Politics aside, the merits of the case against partial-birth abortion
bans are unchanged. The term partial-birth abortion refers to no defined medical
procedure, and definitions included in both the current bill, sponsored by Rep.
Charles Canady, and most state versions are vague enough to leave open the
possibility of criminalizing abortions in the second or even first trimesters.
The ambiguity could frighten off not just women seeking legal abortions but
doctors who now provide them. The Canady bill contains no exemption for the
health of the mother and does not make clear that only late-term abortions are
covered, but both of these steps are needed for abortion laws to pass muster
under the existing constitutional standards. Even if the high court decides to
alter those standards, Rep. Canady's bill will remain wrong as a matter of
public policy.
LOAD-DATE: April 05, 2000
