House Again Overrides Veto of Ban on Late Abortions

The House on Thursday for the second time in two years voted to override President Clinton’s veto of a bill to ban a controversial abortion procedure, an issue Republicans hope to exploit as they seek to retain their congressional majority in this year’s election.

Despite the vote, the measure--which targets a procedure characterized by critics as “partial-birth” abortion--is unlikely to become law because supporters appear two or three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate to override Clinton’s veto.

Still, social conservatives believe public opinion increasingly supports the ban, and the GOP plans to spotlight the opposition by Clinton--and other Democrats--to it in the fall campaigns.

The House tally on overriding Clinton’s veto was 296 to 132, 10 more than the needed two-thirds margin. Seventy-seven Democrats joined 219 Republicans to override, while eight Republicans joined 123 Democrats and the House’s lone independent to sustain the veto. Six Democrats and one Republican did not vote.

In the California delegation, two Republicans voted against the override: Tom Campbell of San Jose and Steven Horn of Long Beach; two Democrats voted for the override: Gary A. Condit of Ceres and Matthew G. Martinez of Monterey Park.

The House vote to override the abortion bill veto was not a surprise--and the debate, while graphic, broke no new ground.

Such a measure was first approved by the House and the Senate in late 1995--and vetoed by Clinton in April 1996. Five months later, the House overrode that veto by a 285-137 vote; a week after that, the Senate attempt to override fell short by nine votes, 58 to 40.

The House again passed the bill in March 1997 by a vote of 295 to 136; the Senate followed suit two months later on a 64-36 vote, three votes shy of a two-thirds majority.

In vetoing the latest measure in October, Clinton objected to the fact that the ban would not make an exception for cases in which the health of a mother is at stake.

Earlier this year, influential social conservatives complained publicly about an absence of issues that would energize the GOP’s core voters. Republican congressional leaders quickly vowed to bring up before the fall election such key issues as the override vote on the abortion bill.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) conceded Thursday that he was “two or three” votes shy of the majority needed to override--but he did not hide his intention to schedule the issue for a roll call as close as possible to the November election.

In the House, there also was little pretense that the vote was, above all, about partisan politics.

“I imagine this [vote] will end up in campaign literature--on both sides,” said Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), the chief proponent of the ban.

“This is politics--pure and simple,” said Rep. Ken Bentsen (D-Texas), who opposed the prohibition.

There’s no dearth of evidence attesting to the political popularity of banning such a controversial procedure: 28 states have adopted variations of the law.

But in 18 of the 20 states where the law has been challenged, courts have found the statutes unconstitutional in whole or in part.

The House bill would ban a procedure in which a fetus is partially delivered, feet first, and then the skull is punctured and the brain is suctioned out.

Rep. Tom A. Coburn (R-Okla.), a physician, called the procedure “infanticide.”

Times staff writer Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.