On December 7, 1995, before the Senate had even voted on final passage of the bill, chief opponent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) took the floor to make an unqualified statement that President Clinton would veto the bill. On December 8, White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry said unequivocally that the President would veto the bill because "it would represent an erosion of a woman's right to choose."
However, when President Clinton next publicly addressed the issue in a February 28 letter to key members of Congress (after a national poll found 71% support for the ban), he took different tone, although the legal bottom line was unchanged. Mr. Clinton wrote of having "studied and prayed about this issue... for many months," of finding the procedure "very disturbing," and of seeking "common ground... that respects the views of those--including myself-- who object to this particular procedure," while defending Roe v. Wade. But the "common ground" that Mr. Clinton proposed tracked the language offered by Sen. Boxer on December 7, and endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) as a "pro-choice vote." The Boxer/NARAL amendment would have allowed partial-birth abortion to be performed without any limitation whatever until "viability," and also "after viability where, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman." (The Senate rejected this gutting amendment.)
The Boxer/Clinton language must be read in the light of Doe v. Bolton, the 1973 companion case to Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court said that "health" must encompass "all factors-- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age-- relevant to the well-being of the patient." Given this expansive definition of "health," adding the word "serious" has no legal effect, since Mr. Clinton proposes to leave entirely up to each abortionist to decide whether "depression" or some other "health" concern is "serious."
In a June 7 letter to leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, Mr. Clinton said that he favored banning the procedure with an exception for "cases where a woman risks death or serious damage to her health," but not for cases involving "youth" or "emotional stress." But in his formal veto message on the bill, Mr. Clinton referred to a "health" exception as required by Roe v. Wade. Mr. Clinton, a former teacher of constitutional law, knows full well that these two positions are inconsistent, because if Roe/Doe applies to partial-birth abortions, then even after "viability," the exception must indeed cover "emotional" health.
In his June 7 letter, President Clinton asserted that "the medical community... broadly supports the continued availability of this procedure where a woman's serious health interests are at stake." However, the American Medical Association (AMA) Legislative Council voted unanimously to recommend endorsement of the bill, with one member explaining that the procedure was "not a recognized medical technique." (The full AMA Board of Trustees was divided on the bill and ultimately took "no position.") Of the five medical doctors who serve in Congress, four voted for the bill, including the only family practitioner/gynecologist.