Pro-Lifers to Fight Clinton-Gore on Vetoes in 2000

NRLC Federal Legislative Office

Editor's Note: This article provides a summary of congressional action on some major pro-life issues during 1999, with a look ahead at the 2000 congressional session. For details on the 1999 congressional session, please see the 12-page NRLC Congressional Scorecard that appears as an insert in this issue of National Right to Life News.

WASHINGTON (January 6) Pro-life forces achieved encouraging successes in advancing major legislation in Congress during 1999. But in 2000, much of that legislation may run hard up against its most formidable obstacle--The Clinton-Gore Administration and its threat of vetoes.
During 1999, pro-life forces were strongest in the House of Representatives. With the support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Il.) and other top leaders of the majority Republicans, pro-life champions such as Rep. Charles Canady (R- Fl.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il.) achieved House passage of three bills strongly supported by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)--the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and the Pain Relief Promotion Act.

The House vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was particularly noteworthy. The bill, would recognize unborn children who are injured or killed during violent federal crimes as legal victims of those crimes. About half of the states already recognize this principle, to varying degrees, in their own criminal laws.

Although the bill would not restrict legal abortion--which is protected by current Supreme Court doctrine--it is strongly opposed by the pro-abortion lobby, which perceives it as "another attempt by antiabortion forces to establish a foothold, in public opinion and in the law, for the idea of treating the fetus as a person," according to a commentary recently published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood.

The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal crime to transport a minor girl across a state line for an abortion, if this denies her parents their right under state law to be involved in her abortion decision. The Pain Relief Promotion Act would prevent the prescription of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia, while fostering their use to alleviate pain.
During 2000, there will be difficult battles in the Senate on all three of the House-passed bills.

During 1999, the top Republican leadership, including Majority Leader Trent Lott (Ms.) and Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (Ok.), sought to advance pro-life legislation, but Senate rules give each senator greater power to impede legislation than is possible in the House. By year's end, the only major NRLC-backed bill passed was the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (which the House will take up in 2000).

The ban on partial-birth abortions was approved by the biggest margin ever -- only two votes short of a two-thirds majority. Yet, during its consideration, the Senate voted 51-47 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion on demand. (See November 1999 NRL News, page 6.)

The Harkin Amendment is not expected to be part of the final version of the bill sent to President Clinton next year, but the outcome certainly demonstrates that the majority of current senators are not prepared to endorse sweeping legal protections for unborn children. Still, although difficult battles are anticipated on the Senate floor, there is a decent chance to win Senate approval during 2000 of the three major pro-life bills passed by the House--the Child Custody Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Pain Relief Promotion Act.

If the Senate joins the House in approving the Child Custody Protection Act or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the pro- abortion lobby will again rely on the veto power that will be exercised by President Bill Clinton, with the vigorous approval of Vice President Al Gore. (The Pain Relief Promotion Act, dealing with assisted suicide, has not been the subject of a White House veto threat, although it has been opposed by the Justice Department.)

A two-thirds vote of each house is required to override a veto. The extreme difficulty of achieving that 2-to-1 ratio on a right- to-life issue is illustrated by the history of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In 1996 and again in 1997, Clinton-Gore Administration vetoes prevented enactment of this national ban on partial-birth abortions. On each occasion, the House voted to override, but the pro-life side was unable to muster the required two-thirds majority in the Senate--in 1998, falling three votes short.

As noted above, when the Senate again approved the ban in October, it was by a majority only two votes short of two- thirds. The House is expected to take up and approve the bill in early 2000, setting the stage for a third veto confrontation with the Clinton-Gore Administration on this issue.
Pro-life forces will do their best to override the anticipated veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and to overcome the vetoes that may occur on the other issues as well.

But even if all of Clinton's vetoes are sustained, these pro-life legislative efforts are certainly very useful. The debate surrounding congressional consideration of each bill, and each veto override fight, serves to educate the public regarding the ways in which innocent human life is devalued under current law. In a modern democracy, this process of visible debate over specific policy questions is absolutely necessary to build public support for changes in the status quo. The Senate vote endorsing Roe v. Wade demonstrates how crucial it is for that process of public education to continue.

Continuing Issues
During 1999, pro-life forces won some limited victories in other areas, but renewed battles will occur during the 2000 session.

Late in 1999, President Clinton reluctantly accepted compromise language, sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), that substantially restricts the amount of money that the president can give, during the current fiscal year, to organizations that perform abortions in foreign nations or that work to weaken the abortion laws of foreign nations. Both sides anticipate a pitched battle during 2000 over whether to extend these restrictions. (See "Clinton Bows to Limits on Funding of Overseas Pro-Abortion Groups," December 1999 NRL News, page 1.)

There is also likely to be sharp debate over another pro-life issue during the 2000 session--the harvesting and trafficking in body parts from babies killed by abortion. Current federal law prohibits the transfer of aborted babies or their organs, limbs, skin, etc. for "valuable consideration," but at least two companies appear to be selling the intact bodies of dead babies or their various parts to researchers.

In October, the Senate narrowly rejected an amendment to beef up federal oversight of such trafficking. But on November 9, 1999, the House passed by voice vote a resolution authored by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) calling for congressional hearings regarding baby body parts. It is anticipated that one or more such hearings will occur in the House Commerce Committee. (See November 1999, NRL News, pages 8 and 12.)

The Clinton-Gore Administration is proceeding with plans to begin funding of research projects for which living human embryos, created through in vitro fertilization, will be killed in order to obtain their "stem cells." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published its proposed rules for funding such research in the December 2, 1999, Federal Register, and they will be open for public comment until January 31. After that, NIH will finalize its guidelines and begin approving grants. (See December 1999 NRL News, page 8.)

In the view of pro-life members of Congress and NRLC, the Administration's planned sponsorship of embyo-destructive research will clearly violate an existing law, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, that prohibits federal funding of any "research in which" human embryos are placed at risk or harmed. During 2000, pro-life lawmakers will seek ways to force the Administration to comply with the legal ban on sponsorship of embryo-destructive research. On the other hand, pro-abortion Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in February will bring to the Senate floor a bill that would provide the Administration with legal authority to fund embryo- destructive research.

Another important piece of legislation that may receive attention during 2000 is the Women and Children's Resources Act (HR 2901, S. 1605), sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). This bill would provide grants to the states for programs to provide pregnant women with alternatives to abortion.

There also may be action on any of several important adoption- related bills, such as the Hope for Children Act (HR 531), authored by Congressman Tom Bliley (R-Va.), and the Adoption Awareness Act (HR 2511), sponsored by Congressman Jim DeMint (R- SC) and Bliley.

NRLC and many other groups will also continue to resist attempts by the White House, the congressional Democratic leadership, and some congressional Republicans (notably Sen. John McCain) to enact so-called "campaign finance reform" legislation that would severely restrict free speech about officeholders and officeseekers, thereby crippling pro-life lobbying and voter education efforts.