Abortion Curb Again on Course for Veto

Legislation to prohibit certain abortions sailed through the Senate on Thursday for the third time in four years, but the measure once more would face an almost certain veto by President Clinton, with little prospect that proponents could override it.

In what has become an annual rite, the Senate voted to approve the measure, which would make it a felony for any physician to perform a “partial-birth abortion”--a term that many courts have ruled is unconstitutionally vague. Although the House has voted for similar bills before, it has not yet passed one during the 106th Congress.

Although the outlook for the legislation has remained dim during Clinton’s term in office, conservatives have insisted on bringing up the bill each year, both to force lawmakers of all stripes to go on record and to meet demands of anti-abortion groups.

Democrats, angered over a decision by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to bring the bill to the floor so quickly, had threatened to hold up debate by proposing amendments dealing with a wide array of women’s issues, but the effort faltered after two days.

Clinton has made no secret of his intention to veto this year’s legislation if the bill is passed by the House. The White House issued a statement saying that the measure “contains the same serious flaws” as those of 1996 and 1997.

On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a stringent alternative that would have banned all abortions performed after the fetus would have been able to survive outside the womb, except in cases in which two independent physicians were willing to certify that a woman’s life was at risk or that she would face “grievous injury” if the baby were born.

Thursday’s 63-34 vote reflected a slightly smaller show of support than in May 1997, when the Senate passed a similar measure, 64 to 36. California’s two senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, again opposed the bill.

The basic legislation would prohibit procedures in which part of the fetus is pulled from the womb and into the birth canal before it is killed.

Although the legislation has not fared well in Washington, the debate surrounding such abortions appears to have struck a chord among Americans with widely varying views on the overall abortion issue. Under pressure from voters, 30 states have passed bans on “partial-birth abortions.”

But many of the state legislative efforts have run into trouble in the courts, which have blunted the bans in 18 states, either by ruling them unconstitutional or by holding them in abeyance until trial.

Both federal and state courts have found that the statutes also might unintentionally ban other methods of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy or even some early-stage abortions.

Judges have held that many of these statutes were too vaguely worded for physicians to be certain which abortion techniques they proscribed. Many carry relatively heavy penalties.

In Thursday’s debate, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chief sponsor of the legislation, said that the Senate should continue its efforts to ban the procedure because it is brutal to the most vulnerable segment of society: its babies.

“This is about infanticide,” Santorum said. “This is a baby who is all but born and then killed.”

Liberals denounced the legislation as unconstitutional and charged that the vote was designed solely to boost Republican election prospects next year at the expense of pregnant women whose lives and health are in danger.

“This is the third time the president will veto this bill,” Boxer said earlier in the debate. “Why go through this if not for politics?”

Before voting on passage of the legislation Thursday, the Senate approved a symbolic resolution expressing support for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which declared that women have a constitutionally protected right to abortion.

The provision, sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), was passed on a vote of 51 to 47.