House again approves late-term abortion ban

From staff and wire reports

April 5, 2000
Web posted at: 5:35 p.m. EDT (2135 GMT)

WASHINGTON -- In the face of a certain presidential veto, the House voted Wednesday to approve legislation banning a form of late-term abortion referred to as "partial-birth" by abortion opponents.

The measure was approved 287-141, enough to override a threatened veto by President Bill Clinton. And, although the bill is expected by be approved by the Senate, the margin of victory there is not expected to be veto-proof.

Rep. Rick Hill

Clinton has vetoed similar proposals twice. The bill allows for the procedure only if a woman's life is endangered.

"Everybody in this room knows this is wrong. It is not legally or morally defensible," said Rep. Rick Hill (R-Montana), 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-Florida), the lead supporter of the measure.

Countered Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York): "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-Colorado), 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 was never 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 year, 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 Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 established "an important constitutional right" and should not be overturned.

Rep. Diana DeGette

Democrats accused the bill's largely Republican supporters of playing politics with the issue during an election year. They also charged Republicans with attempting to undermine Roe v. Wade.

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.

As drafted, the House bill seeks to ban abortions in which a doctor "vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the mother" and "kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the mother."

While the only exception to the ban are instances where a woman's life is in jeopardy, shortly before final passage, Democratic opponents of the bill sought unsuccessfully to exempt cases involving "serious long term physical health consequences" to a woman. The vote on that amendment was 289 nays to 140 yeas.

A bipartisan group of opponents of the measure also sought a vote on an alternative to ban "post-viability abortions" except in cases where the woman's life or health were in jeopardy. The GOP leadership successfully prevented the measure from coming to a vote.

Since gaining their majority in the House and Senate in 1994, Republicans have twice pushed partial birth measures to Clinton's desk, causing political anguish in the process for many Democrats who favor abortion rights but found the bills impossible to oppose.

In all, 209 Republicans, 77 Democrats and one independent voted for the measure, while 132 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent were opposed.

CNN's Ted Barrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.