- The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 7, 2003

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to forbid veterinarians from putting animals to death by a method that requires jamming scissors through the skull and then suctioning out the brains. No one objected.

What? Sorry, I got that wrong. It was not dogs and cats that were being put to death this way. It was human fetuses. So you won’t be surprised to learn that when the House voted to forbid doctors from using this method, plenty of people objected. NARAL Pro-Choice America is one of the groups opposing the bill, calling it part of an effort to take away the “freedom to choose.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler: Impeachment vote possible this week
Melania Trump befriends 18-year-old former leukemia patient
CNN's primetime ratings hit three-year low amid impeachment coverage

Partial-birth abortion has been a forgotten subject since 2000, when the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning the procedure. But even in a nation where most people favor keeping abortion available, the public is affronted when it takes especially cruel and grotesque forms. So congressional opponents of the procedure have tried to fashion a new version of the ban that could meet the court’s objections.

The court complained the Nebraska law was so vague that doctors couldn’t know in advance if they were breaking the law. So this bill takes pains to be as clear and specific as humanly possible. It affects any abortion in which the physician “intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until … the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or … any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother” and then kills it.

What’s so terrible about that type of abortion? As the American Medical Association has acknowledged, it’s different from others because the fetus is, um, “killed outside the womb.” Once a fetus is entirely or partly out of the womb, it can’t be regarded as just a part of the mother’s body anymore. It’s an independent being, with separate interests that deserve protection.

Critics of the measure have been busy resurrecting old claims that have long been discredited. They say this form of abortion is extremely rare. But when the controversy first emerged a few years ago, one New Jersey facility acknowledged doing some 3,000 a year.

They say it’s used only when the fetus is terribly defective or the mother’s health is in serious danger. Rep. Louise Slaughter, New York Democrat, said in the House debate, “These are not children who will be born and run around the room.” But the National Coalition of Abortion Providers says the vast majority of these abortions are performed on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses.

Opponents of the ban say this procedure is an essential option for women and their doctors. The American Medical Association, however, notes, “There does not appear to be any identified situation in which [it] is the only appropriate procedure.”

Opponents also say the government should not override the judgment of a trained physician. Would they say that about Jack Kevorkian? Would they say that about a doctor who agreed to perform “female circumcision” on an immigrant girl whose parents requested it, in keeping with their native customs? The government routinely overrules the medical judgment of doctors who would like to prescribe drugs that are not approved for use.

Abortion-rights advocates say many supporters of the ban would like to prohibit almost all abortions. That’s not the case for senators like Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, or Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican — all of whom want to keep abortion legal and all of whom voted to ban this procedure.

Nor is it the case for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted to uphold both the 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade and the Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion. He noted that no studies proved it safer than other methods, and said the government may ban what he called “a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent.”

It’s true many and possibly even most supporters of the bill would like to outlaw abortion except in the most extreme cases. That’s no argument for allowing this particular method. Radical animal rights groups favor laws against cruelty to animals, but you can support anti-cruelty laws without endorsing a ban on eating meat.

Even people who favor a broad right to abortion may think this type comes uncomfortably close to something no one should want. As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, an abortion-rights supporter, put it, “It is infanticide, and one would be too many.”

Steve Chapman is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide