Tweet
Bush to sign anti-abortion measure
Associated Press
President Bush was to hand abortion opponents a victory sought through seven years of political battle Wednesday when he signed legislation that bans some abortions. But in a likely prelude of obstacles that linger, a federal judge in Nebraska sharply questioned the constitutionality of the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE represents an end to a legislative crusade that began when Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But for abortion rights advocates, Bush's action simply moves the fight over a procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" from Congress to the courts.
The bill forbids a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, generally performed in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.
Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key part of his base of political support, the president called the bill "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America" when it gained final congressional approval late last month.
Despite his strong anti-abortion credentials, Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate.
So last week, during a news conference with reporters, he repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign, saying he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move.
if (window.displayApp) displayApp(trimesterabortions);
NO EXCEPTION FOR WOMAN'S HEALTH
The legislation, which is similar to a Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down three years ago, imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the high court in 1973 established a woman's right to end a pregnancy.
It prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partly delivered fetus. There is no exception to the ban if the woman's health is at risk of if the child would be born with ailments.
Supporters argue that the bill applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy -- and relatively rarely -- and that the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the woman.
But abortion rights groups say the law has overly broad language that could criminalize several safe and common procedures, and they fault it for not providing an exception to protect a mother's health. They also fear that the law will represent the first step in a larger campaign to eventually bar all abortions.
As a result, opponents attacked it in three separate challenges even before it became law, with lawsuits filed Friday in federal courts in San Francisco; Omaha, Neb.; and New York City. Hearings were scheduled Wednesday on all three suits' request for temporary restraining orders that would block the law from taking effect.
In Lincoln, Neb., U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf indicated Wednesday that he had substantial concerns. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said at the outset of his hearing.
Kopf said the congressional record of the debate of the bill did not reflect "an objective" presentation of the facts.
He also said the law appeared to have a "serious vagueness problem."
Planned Parenthood sued in San Francisco on behalf of the group and women seeking the type of abortions the law would ban, while the Center for Reproductive Rights filed in Omaha on behalf of physicians. The American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New York.
OPPONENTS' STRATEGIES
Also Wednesday, an abortion rights group was airing a television ad that says Bush's signature would erode doctor-patient privacy rights and could represent his first step toward overturning a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is spending nearly $500,000 to air ads in Washington, as well as Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, N.H., the sites of key early voting in next year's presidential contest.
And activists, organized by the National Organization for Women, were planning a protest outside the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, where Bush was to sign the bill.
"We won't stand by silently as this administration attempts to erode our rights," NOW President Kim Gandy said.
The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."
Sponsors of the legislation say it is used about 2,200 times a year, principally during the 20th through 26th weeks of pregnancy.
© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
Associated Press
President Bush was to hand abortion opponents a victory sought through seven years of political battle Wednesday when he signed legislation that bans some abortions. But in a likely prelude of obstacles that linger, a federal judge in Nebraska sharply questioned the constitutionality of the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE represents an end to a legislative crusade that began when Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But for abortion rights advocates, Bush's action simply moves the fight over a procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" from Congress to the courts.
The bill forbids a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, generally performed in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.
Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key part of his base of political support, the president called the bill "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America" when it gained final congressional approval late last month.
Despite his strong anti-abortion credentials, Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate.
So last week, during a news conference with reporters, he repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign, saying he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move.
if (window.displayApp) displayApp(trimesterabortions);
NO EXCEPTION FOR WOMAN'S HEALTH
The legislation, which is similar to a Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down three years ago, imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the high court in 1973 established a woman's right to end a pregnancy.
It prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partly delivered fetus. There is no exception to the ban if the woman's health is at risk of if the child would be born with ailments.
Supporters argue that the bill applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy -- and relatively rarely -- and that the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the woman.
But abortion rights groups say the law has overly broad language that could criminalize several safe and common procedures, and they fault it for not providing an exception to protect a mother's health. They also fear that the law will represent the first step in a larger campaign to eventually bar all abortions.
As a result, opponents attacked it in three separate challenges even before it became law, with lawsuits filed Friday in federal courts in San Francisco; Omaha, Neb.; and New York City. Hearings were scheduled Wednesday on all three suits' request for temporary restraining orders that would block the law from taking effect.
In Lincoln, Neb., U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf indicated Wednesday that he had substantial concerns. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said at the outset of his hearing.
Kopf said the congressional record of the debate of the bill did not reflect "an objective" presentation of the facts.
He also said the law appeared to have a "serious vagueness problem."
Planned Parenthood sued in San Francisco on behalf of the group and women seeking the type of abortions the law would ban, while the Center for Reproductive Rights filed in Omaha on behalf of physicians. The American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New York.
OPPONENTS' STRATEGIES
Also Wednesday, an abortion rights group was airing a television ad that says Bush's signature would erode doctor-patient privacy rights and could represent his first step toward overturning a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is spending nearly $500,000 to air ads in Washington, as well as Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, N.H., the sites of key early voting in next year's presidential contest.
And activists, organized by the National Organization for Women, were planning a protest outside the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, where Bush was to sign the bill.
"We won't stand by silently as this administration attempts to erode our rights," NOW President Kim Gandy said.
The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."
Sponsors of the legislation say it is used about 2,200 times a year, principally during the 20th through 26th weeks of pregnancy.
© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
I think its a shame... ten men just got up on a podium and made a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. This is also a step down that slippery slope because we all know that Bush and company are extremists who want all abortion banned, including rape, incest, medical necessity...
a sad day
is more in order, assuming the bill has provisions for the LIFE of the mother (not "health," which is easily bent). The whole filthy barbarous procedure has gone on too long. If abortion in general goes down the toilet with it, good riddance.
Comment