Did you guys see this in the news?
Senate Votes to Ban Disputed Abortion Procedure
By CARL HULSE
From www.nytimes.com
WASHINGTON, March 13 — After an emotional and caustic debate over abortion rights, the Senate voted overwhelmingly today to ban a highly disputed procedure that its critics call partial-birth abortion.
With 16 Democrats also backing the measure, the 64-to-33 vote was a big victory for Republicans, who narrowly control the Senate.
The measure now goes to the House, which is also in Republican hands and where passage this spring is expected. President Bush has said that he is eager to sign it into law. He issued a statement today calling the type of abortion at issue 'an abhorrent procedure that offends dignity.'
Comments by lawmakers reflected the depth of emotion surrounding the issue, and the roll call illustrated how abortion is a matter that transcends party lines as it presents politicians with wrenching choices.
'Abortion takes life away,' the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said during the debate. 'And partial-birth abortion does so in a manner that is brutal and barbaric and morally offensive to the mainstream medical community.' The senator is a physician.
On the other hand, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said the term 'partial birth' belonged not in a medical dictionary but in a political one.
'They made up the term `partial-birth abortion,' ' Senator Boxer said of the bill's supporters. 'It's a very emotional term, but what we're talking about here is a procedure that is used in situations where any other procedure might cause grave harm to the woman.'
Among the 16 Democrats voting for the ban were Senators Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader; Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont; and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.
Only three Republicans voted against the ban — Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine — as did the Senate's lone independent, James M. Jeffords of Vermont. Three senators did not vote: Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, John Edwards of North Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts, all Democrats. (The complete roll call can be seen on the Senate's Web site, www.senate.gov.)
Although the outcome today was all but certain, the debate was spirited, and sometimes bitter, to the end. Abortion rights advocates gained some consolation on Wednesday when the Senate endorsed a resolution, 52 to 46, stating that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was 'appropriate and secures an important constitutional right' and should not be overturned.
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who proposed adding the nonbinding language to the abortion measure, said, 'As the Supreme Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in society.'
But before that Democratic victory, senators voted 60 to 38 against a proposal that would have allowed the so-called partial-birth abortion in cases where two physicians certify that a continued pregnancy poses a 'grievous' threat to a woman's health. Lawmakers also voted 60 to 35 against a broader version of that exemption. And they defeated, 56 to 42, an effort to send the measure back for committee consideration.
As Republicans who oppose abortion demonstrated their new power in the Senate, Democrats bristled at the tone of the proceedings, accusing Republicans of using inflammatory language and charts.
'The debate has gotten as ugly as I've ever seen it,' said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, a leader of the floor fight against the ban.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, echoed that view.
'I'm very concerned about some of the words I have heard on this floor over the last several days,' Senator Clinton said, saying Republicans had compared abortion to execution and murder.
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, the chief sponsor of the ban, defended his use of a chart that Democrats had said was misleading because it showed a perfectly formed fetus when many abortions were done because of serious birth defects and other problems.
'It is inherent on us to present the standard,' said Mr. Santorum, who said his chart represented a typical abortion.
The clashes illustrated the emotion and tension surrounding the issue as the Senate took up significant legislation restricting abortion for the first time since Republicans won control last November.
The procedure at issue, though, has been the subject of Congressional debate for almost a decade. As described in the measure, the procedure is one in which a doctor partially delivers a living fetus until much of its body 'is outside the body of the mother' and then 'performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered fetus.'
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said that the national dialogue over abortion was being driven by activists on both sides and that much of the public fell somewhere in the middle.
'The American people do not agree with the extremes on both sides,' Ms. Landrieu said. 'I would say that the majority of people in this country believe in some situations abortion should be legal. It should be safe. And we are attempting to make it more rare.'
In the penultimate vote, on Wednesday, the Senate defeated an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to allow an exception to the ban when the attending physician determines that the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. The proposed law already includes an exception to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Advocates of the ban say that allowing for the health of the woman would badly weaken the measure since the health rationale could be broadly interpreted.
After her provision was defeated, Ms. Feinstein said, 'It is a real step backwards for the right to choose.'
In finding a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional in 2000, the Supreme Court said such health exceptions were warranted. Authors of the new ban have tried to answer the court by including Congressional findings that the procedure is never warranted for the health of the pregnant woman.
In trying to narrow the health exception, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, would have required that two doctors, including a physician who would not be involved in the abortion, find that the pregnancy posed a significant health threat. But that provision was not seen as a good compromise, even by lawmakers who support abortion rights.
On Tuesday, the Senate also turned down a Democratic effort to require private health insurance companies to cover contraceptives.
Republicans argue that the abortion procedure at issue is brutal and barbaric and, contrary to Democratic claims, represents a threat to the health of a pregnant woman. One Republican referred to past Democratic initiatives to protect wildlife.
'I don't understand,' said Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald, Republican of Illinois, 'how those who can hear the howl of a wolf or the squeal of a dolphin can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child.'
Opponents of the measure say that the procedure is rare and that the ban could be extended to other procedures.
A similar version passed the House last year but was never brought up in the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats.
By CARL HULSE
From www.nytimes.com
WASHINGTON, March 13 — After an emotional and caustic debate over abortion rights, the Senate voted overwhelmingly today to ban a highly disputed procedure that its critics call partial-birth abortion.
With 16 Democrats also backing the measure, the 64-to-33 vote was a big victory for Republicans, who narrowly control the Senate.
The measure now goes to the House, which is also in Republican hands and where passage this spring is expected. President Bush has said that he is eager to sign it into law. He issued a statement today calling the type of abortion at issue 'an abhorrent procedure that offends dignity.'
Comments by lawmakers reflected the depth of emotion surrounding the issue, and the roll call illustrated how abortion is a matter that transcends party lines as it presents politicians with wrenching choices.
'Abortion takes life away,' the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said during the debate. 'And partial-birth abortion does so in a manner that is brutal and barbaric and morally offensive to the mainstream medical community.' The senator is a physician.
On the other hand, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said the term 'partial birth' belonged not in a medical dictionary but in a political one.
'They made up the term `partial-birth abortion,' ' Senator Boxer said of the bill's supporters. 'It's a very emotional term, but what we're talking about here is a procedure that is used in situations where any other procedure might cause grave harm to the woman.'
Among the 16 Democrats voting for the ban were Senators Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader; Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont; and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.
Only three Republicans voted against the ban — Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine — as did the Senate's lone independent, James M. Jeffords of Vermont. Three senators did not vote: Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, John Edwards of North Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts, all Democrats. (The complete roll call can be seen on the Senate's Web site, www.senate.gov.)
Although the outcome today was all but certain, the debate was spirited, and sometimes bitter, to the end. Abortion rights advocates gained some consolation on Wednesday when the Senate endorsed a resolution, 52 to 46, stating that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was 'appropriate and secures an important constitutional right' and should not be overturned.
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who proposed adding the nonbinding language to the abortion measure, said, 'As the Supreme Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in society.'
But before that Democratic victory, senators voted 60 to 38 against a proposal that would have allowed the so-called partial-birth abortion in cases where two physicians certify that a continued pregnancy poses a 'grievous' threat to a woman's health. Lawmakers also voted 60 to 35 against a broader version of that exemption. And they defeated, 56 to 42, an effort to send the measure back for committee consideration.
As Republicans who oppose abortion demonstrated their new power in the Senate, Democrats bristled at the tone of the proceedings, accusing Republicans of using inflammatory language and charts.
'The debate has gotten as ugly as I've ever seen it,' said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, a leader of the floor fight against the ban.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, echoed that view.
'I'm very concerned about some of the words I have heard on this floor over the last several days,' Senator Clinton said, saying Republicans had compared abortion to execution and murder.
Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, the chief sponsor of the ban, defended his use of a chart that Democrats had said was misleading because it showed a perfectly formed fetus when many abortions were done because of serious birth defects and other problems.
'It is inherent on us to present the standard,' said Mr. Santorum, who said his chart represented a typical abortion.
The clashes illustrated the emotion and tension surrounding the issue as the Senate took up significant legislation restricting abortion for the first time since Republicans won control last November.
The procedure at issue, though, has been the subject of Congressional debate for almost a decade. As described in the measure, the procedure is one in which a doctor partially delivers a living fetus until much of its body 'is outside the body of the mother' and then 'performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered fetus.'
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said that the national dialogue over abortion was being driven by activists on both sides and that much of the public fell somewhere in the middle.
'The American people do not agree with the extremes on both sides,' Ms. Landrieu said. 'I would say that the majority of people in this country believe in some situations abortion should be legal. It should be safe. And we are attempting to make it more rare.'
In the penultimate vote, on Wednesday, the Senate defeated an amendment by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to allow an exception to the ban when the attending physician determines that the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. The proposed law already includes an exception to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Advocates of the ban say that allowing for the health of the woman would badly weaken the measure since the health rationale could be broadly interpreted.
After her provision was defeated, Ms. Feinstein said, 'It is a real step backwards for the right to choose.'
In finding a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional in 2000, the Supreme Court said such health exceptions were warranted. Authors of the new ban have tried to answer the court by including Congressional findings that the procedure is never warranted for the health of the pregnant woman.
In trying to narrow the health exception, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, would have required that two doctors, including a physician who would not be involved in the abortion, find that the pregnancy posed a significant health threat. But that provision was not seen as a good compromise, even by lawmakers who support abortion rights.
On Tuesday, the Senate also turned down a Democratic effort to require private health insurance companies to cover contraceptives.
Republicans argue that the abortion procedure at issue is brutal and barbaric and, contrary to Democratic claims, represents a threat to the health of a pregnant woman. One Republican referred to past Democratic initiatives to protect wildlife.
'I don't understand,' said Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald, Republican of Illinois, 'how those who can hear the howl of a wolf or the squeal of a dolphin can be deaf to the cry of an unborn child.'
Opponents of the measure say that the procedure is rare and that the ban could be extended to other procedures.
A similar version passed the House last year but was never brought up in the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats.
