HR 1833 explicitly provides that the ban "shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury," if "no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose."
[Some pro-abortion advocacy groups have insisted that exception does not apply to disorders associated with pregnancy, since "pregnancy" per se is not a disorder or disease. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Il.) commented that this reading "is absurdly convoluted, and violates standard principles of statutory construction." In a June 7 letter, even President Clinton has acknowledged that the bill "provides an exception to the ban on this procedure only when a doctor is convinced that a woman's life is at risk."]
Under HR 1833, an abortionist could not be convicted of a violation of the law unless the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the abortion was not covered by this exception. (In addition, of course, the government would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the other elements of the offense-- that the abortionist "knowingly" partly removed a baby from the womb, that the baby was still alive, and that the abortionist then killed the baby.)
It is noteworthy that none of the five women who appeared with President Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony required a partial-birth abortion because of danger to her life. As one of the women, Claudia Crown Ades, said in a tape-recorded April 12 radio interview on WNTM (Mobile, AL):
"My procedure was elective. That is considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of Coreen Costello and Tammy Watts and Mary-Dorothy Line and all the other women who were at the White House yesterday. All of our procedures were considered elective." [Complete tape recording available on request.]
[Two of the women said that if their babies had died natural deaths within their wombs, it could have placed them at risk. But the removal of a baby who dies a natural death, whether by foot-first extraction or in any other manner, is not an abortion and has nothing to do with the bill. Professor Watson Bowes, Jr., of the University of North Carolina, co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, has stated that weeks would pass between the baby's natural demise and the development of any resulting risk to the mother.]