But Foreign Aid Amendment Advances
Partial-Birth Abortion and Parental Consent Bills Killed By Pro-Abortion Minority in U.S. Senate
By NRLC Federal Legislative Office

WASHINGTON (Sept. 25) - - For want of a handful of votes, two major NRLC-backed bills have died in the U.S. Senate.

Both bills - - the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Child Custody Protection Act - - had the support of a majority of senators, but fell short of the super-majorities needed to overcome the obstacles raised by pro-abortion opponents. If pro- life voters turn out in the November 3 elections, both bills could become passable early next year.

Meanwhile, a provision to curb the Clinton Administration's promotion of abortion in foreign nations was approved by the House, but faces an uncertain future during the closing weeks of the 1997-98 Congress, which is scheduled to end on October 9.

Partial-Birth Veto
The ban on partial-birth abortions (HR 1122) was approved by Congress last year, but was vetoed by President Clinton. On July 23, the House of Representatives voted to override the veto, 296- 132, ten votes more than the required two-thirds majority. But when the Senate voted on the veto override on September 18, the tally was 64-36 - - three votes short of a two-thirds majority. [See roll call chart, page 23.]

Despite a year-long campaign by NRLC and other pro-life groups, every senator voted the same way as on the last occasion when the Senate voted on the bill, on May 20, 1997.

"I am disappointed and disturbed at the failure of the U.S. Senate to override President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban," said Cardinal Bernard Law, chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. "It is a national tragedy that it remains legal to kill infants who are almost fully born."

"It is appalling that 36 senators voted to allow babies to be delivered alive, feet first up to their heads, before being killed," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. " Millions of Americans will remember this vote, and there are good prospects for achieving a net gain of three Senate votes on this issue in the November 3 election, which would make it possible to enact the ban early next year - - even over the objections of Bill Clinton or Al Gore."

Several senators who voted against the ban are in very competitive races for re-election.

In a speech to the national convention of the Christian Coalition, immediately following the vote, pro-life Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Ms.) said that if three more pro- life senators are elected in November, he will bring up the bill within 30 days of the start of the new Congress in January, and " it will be over for this procedure."

In an interview with the publication Inside Congress (Sept. 25), Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), said that her organization's priority would be to persuade pro-abortion voters to go to the polls, telling them that if pro-life forces gain more allies in Congress, "there could be no stopping them."

During the Senate debate on the veto, opponents of the ban argued that it constituted unwise interference with "medical" decisions. They often cited opposition to the bill by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). " Congress, as a body, is not licensed to practice medicine," argued Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Il.).

Supporters of the bill, led by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Bob Smith (R-NH), cited evidence that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers, mostly during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Bill backers also often noted that the American Medical Association had endorsed the bill. In a letter to the Senate on May 19, 1997, the AMA called partial-birth abortion "a procedure we all agree is not good medicine."

The bill would permit a partial-birth abortion to be performed if it was ever necessary to save a mother's life, but many medical experts say that such a case would never occur.

Pro-life Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tn.), the Senate's only physician, said, "Partial-birth abortion should never - - should never - - be performed, because it is needlessly risky to the woman, because it is an unnecessary procedure, because it is inhumane to the fetus, and because it is medically unacceptable and offends the very basic civil sensibilities of people all across this country."

Opponents of the bill argued that it violates Supreme Court decisions, because it does not contain a "health of the mother" exception, and because it would ban partial-birth abortions whether they are performed before or after the baby is considered "viable." Supporters argued that these Supreme Court decisions do not apply to babies who are already mostly outside the womb.

Phony Bans
Some senators who voted against the bill endorsed a different proposal, sponsored by pro-abortion Senator Richard Durbin (D- Il.), which they claimed would ban most so-called "late-term" abortions. NRLC's Johnson labeled the Durbin bill "a political ploy, so riddled with loopholes that it would not prevent a single abortion."

Among other loopholes, the Durbin bill (S. 2497) would not apply during the period of pregnancy in which most partial-birth abortions are performed - - the fifth and sixth months. In addition, it would empower abortionists to perform even third- trimester abortions under an expansive definition of "risk" to a mother's health.

Dr. Warren Hern, a specialist in third-trimester abortion and author of the standard textbook on abortion methods, said in an interview that the key language contained in the bill would allow him to authorize an abortion for any pregnant woman, since every normal pregnancy involves some small statistical risk.

The Durbin bill is similar to another "phony ban," offered by pro- abortion Sen. Daschle as an amendment to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in May 1997. The Senate rejected the Daschle proposal on a lopsided vote.

The Durbin bill is also similar to the "phony ban" proposed by two pro-abortion champions in the House, Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.). (See "Hoyer-Greenwood Phony Ban," Aug. 12 NRL News, page 6.)

This was the second time that President Clinton, backed by a minority of senators, has killed the partial-birth ban. When the Senate voted on the issue in September, 1996, 58 senators voted to override Clinton's veto.

Child Custody Protection Act
On September 22, the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 1645) died when supporters were unable to muster the supermajority needed to overcome obstacles erected by the Senate Democratic leadership. The vote to "invoke cloture" and advance the bill was 54-45, six short of the 60 votes required. [See roll call, page 23.]

The bill would make it a federal crime for a non-parent to transport a minor across a state line to obtain a secret abortion, if this abridges the rights of parents under a state law requiring parental or judicial involvement in the minor's abortion decision. President Clinton opposes the bill, insisting that non-custodial relatives - - for example, a parent's mother- in-law - - must be allowed to take a minor girl across state lines for a secret abortion, without a parent's knowledge or consent.

"We are dismayed that 45 senators voted with President Clinton to kill legislation that would help protect young women and girls from harmful manipulation, often by much older boyfriends," said NRLC Policy Analyst Susan Muskett.

The Child Custody Protection Act was supported by a majority of the Senate. However, some opponents of the bill, including Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (SD), Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), insisted on offering amendments on subjects entirely unrelated to the purpose of the bill, including gun control and health care legislation. Since the congressional session is almost over, entanglement in such unrelated controversies would kill the bill. Therefore, supporters of the bill, including chief sponsor Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.), attempted to "invoke cloture" on the bill, which requires 60 votes. If successful, the cloture motion would have blocked consideration of the unrelated "killer" amendments, while still allowing votes on germane amendments to add various exceptions to the bill.

However, the attempt failed because Democratic senators voted almost as a bloc against advancing the bill. Of the 45 Democratic senators, only two - - Fritz Hollings (SC) and Harry Reid (Nv.), both in tight re-election races - - voted for cloture.

In addition, three of the Senate's 55 Republicans voted against cloture: Senators John Chafee (RI), Jim Jeffords (Vt.), and Arlen Specter (Pa.).

Following the vote, Sen. Abraham expressed disappointment with the outcome, but vowed to renew his push for enactment of the bill early in 1999.

Foreign Aid
At NRL News deadline on September 25, another important pro-life legislative priority was still alive. On September 17, the full House approved a foreign aid appropriations bill (HR 4569) that included an NRLC-backed provision authored by Pro-Life Caucus Co- Chairman Chris Smith (R-NJ) to deny U.S. "population assistance" funds to organizations that seek to weaken or repeal the abortion laws of foreign nations, or that violate such laws.

It was originally anticipated that pro-abortion Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) would offer an amendment on the House floor to nullify the Smith language, but she changed her mind after concluding that the House would ratify the Smith language.

However, the Senate-passed version of the bill does not contain the pro-life provision. It appears that the issue will be one of several contentious matters to be negotiated between congressional leaders and the White House during the final weeks of the Congress.

President Clinton has threatened to veto any bill that contains the Smith language. Unless he changes his mind, the Administration may pay a heavy price for its intransigence: Congress has added the same Smith language to another bill (HR 1757) that would pay $819 million in "back dues" (called "arrears") to the United Nations, which the Administration regards as a high priority. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) has warned that if the White House does not accept the Smith provision, that bill is dead for the year.

"Clearly, Mr. Clinton is desperate to keep the support of groups like the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood," Helms wrote in an op ed in The New York Times (Sept. 21). "But is the President really so desperate that he is willing to put his political needs ahead of paying the United Nations arrears?"

U.N. officials have warned that the U.S. may lose its vote in the U.N. General Assembly if it does not pay the arrears by the end of this year.