Partial-birth abortion, Congress, and the Constitution.

Abstract

In the US, a new antiabortion strategy of using legislative and judicial forums to change the rhetoric of abortion rather than using abortion rhetoric to change the law arose out of disappointment when the 1992 Casey decision failed to overturn Roe. This new approach is crystallized by the 1995 introduction of federal legislation (vetoed by the President) to ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions. Opponents to this late-term procedure undertaken to preserve a women's life or health distinguish intact dilatation and extraction from induced labor to terminate a nonviable pregnancy (failing to recognize the lack of ethical difference) and make inaccurate political statements linking the abortion procedure to infanticide. When the ban was reintroduced to Congress in 1997, the previously silent American Medical Association agreed to support the bill if two "physician-friendly" amendments were added, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made it clear that it is "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous" for legislative bodies to intervene into medical decision-making. The new version of the bill shifted the focus to all abortions after viability unless they are necessary to protect the mother from grievous harm to her physical (not mental) health, thus limiting the reach of the Roe decision. Clinton vetoed this bill also. Such legislation would be unlikely to prevent even one abortion, and its importance rests in its view of the proper role of government in regulating health care. This follows previous efforts to reframe the abortion debate by creating a dichotomy that marginalizes either women or fetuses and shifts the focus to another issue.