In State of Union Address, Bush Calls for Bans

Bans on Partial-Birth Abortion, Human Cloning On Congressional Agenda in Months Ahead

WASHINGTON (Feb. 3, 2003)--In his January 28 State of the Union speech, President Bush set the stage for crucial battles in the U.S. Senate over two top priorities for the pro-life movement--banning partial-birth abortion and banning all human cloning.

The President called on Congress to send him both bans for his signature.

During the 107th Congress (2001-2002), the House passed both bans, and both measures are expected to pass the House again during the months ahead.

In 2001-02, Democrats held 51-49 majority control in the Senate, and their leadership killed these and other pro-life bills without a vote. Following Republican gains in the November election, Republicans hold majority control in the new Senate, 51-49. But the bills still will face stiff resistance in the Senate, where even a minority of senators can sometimes obstruct legislation.

Partial-Birth Abortion

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush said, "By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society--a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion."

Six days earlier, in remarks delivered by telephone to the March for Life in Washington, the President said, "My hope is that the United States Congress will pass a bill this year banning partial-birth abortion, which I will sign. Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn.) used the same word in an appearance on Fox News Sunday on January 12: "It's an abhorrent, abhorrent procedure that offends the civil sensibilities of every, I think, just about every American."

On the same day, Dr. Frist said on NBC's Meet the Press, "I can tell you as a physician who has been in the operating room for thousands of days and hundreds of thousands of hours, the whole concept of partial-birth abortion offends the sensibilities of me as a physician. It's a rogue procedure. It's not in the medical textbooks."

Frist said he could not say exactly when the issue would come up, because "we are just beginning sort of all the planning in terms of what particular bills" will be considered when, but that it could be "very, very quickly." White House senior adviser Karl Rove told reporters on January 22 that the bans on partial-birth abortion and human cloning are part of "the immediate tasks at hand," according to the Washington Post.

Pro-life forces are hopeful about the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, because the Senate previously passed such legislation in 1995, 1997, and 1999. President Clinton vetoed the ban twice, and pro-life forces failed to reach the two-thirds margin in the Senate necessary to override those vetoes.

More than 60 of the current senators either have voted to pass the bill in past congresses or have expressed clear support for it. However, there will be much closer votes on crippling amendments to the bill, such as a "phony ban" substitute proposal sponsored by pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il.).

Human Cloning

In the State of the Union speech, President Bush also repeated his past calls for Congress to ban the cloning of human embryos.

"Because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning," he said.

In his earlier remarks to the March for Life, the President said, "I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiments."

Majority Leader Frist reiterated his opposition to all human cloning in two January 12 interviews.

On Fox News Sunday, Frist said, "I am opposed to any time that you create an embryo itself with the purpose being destruction, and that would include the so-called research cloning. And remember, research cloning just is that, it's experimental. There's been no demonstrated benefit of that to date, so I don't think you ought to destroy life. . . ."

The bill to ban all human cloning is the Brownback-Landrieu bill in the Senate (S. 245) and the Weldon-Stupak bill in the House (H.R. 534). The House passed the bill in 2001, but it died without action in the Senate. The House is expected to take up the bill again soon.

Public opinion polls show that the great majority of Americans oppose the cloning of human embryos. However, the bill to ban all human cloning faces stiff resistance from the biotechnology industry, some patients' advocacy groups, and much of the scientific establishment.

Most of these groups have coalesced behind a competing proposal that pro-life groups call "clone and kill" or "the phony ban." It will be reintroduced soon by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and others. It is expected that the new bill will allow the cloning of any number of human embryos, while making it a crime to allow any cloned human embryo to live past 14 days of age.

Other Pro-Life Bills

The pro-life side also hopes to see action in the new Congress on at least three other bills that were passed by the House in 2001-2002, but killed without votes in the Senate. They are:

* The Child Custody Protection Act, to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents' right to be involved under their home-state law. The bill will be introduced by Senator John Ensign (R-Nv.) and by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.).

* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), a bill to recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime. Senator Mike DeWine (R-Oh.) has reintroduced the bill as S. 146. It will be reintroduced in the House by Reps. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.), Steve Chabot (R-Oh.), and Bob Ney (R-Oh.).

* The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions. The bill will be reintroduced by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH).

Prospects in New Congress

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans continue to hold majority control as they have since 1995, keeping scheduling power and most key leadership positions in the hands of pro-life lawmakers, including Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Il.), Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tx.), and Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi.), all of whom were instrumental in winning House passage of pro-life bills during 2001 and 2002.

Republican senators elected Frist as their new majority leader in December. Frist has voted pro-life on 100% of the roll call votes scored by the National Right to Life Committee over the past six years. (NRLC congressional scorecards are posted on the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org, at the "Legislative Action Center.")

The Republican senators also selected pro-life Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as majority whip, the second-ranking leadership position, and pro-life Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) to the number three position of Republican Conference chairman. Pro-life Senator George Allen (R-Va.) chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has the mission of electing and re-electing Republican senators.

Even with the change in majority control, the Senate remains tough territory for pro-life forces. At least 53 of the 100 senators are on record in support of Roe v. Wade. In addition, Senate rules often allow a minority of senators to block legislation unless 60 senators vote to "invoke cloture."

Still, some senators will place themselves at political risk if they participate in attempts to obstruct bills that represent policies that have broad public support.

For example, a January Gallup poll found 70% public support for the ban on partial-birth abortions, and 73% support for laws requiring parental consent for abortion on a minor daughter. A Gallup poll last year found 61% opposition to allowing the cloning of human embryos for research.

Judicial Nominations

The switch in majority control of the Senate will make a big difference to many of President Bush's nominations to the federal courts.

During 2001-2002, Democrats held a 10-9 majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Democratic chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt.), refused to schedule hearings or committee votes on some key nominees. In addition, two nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, were defeated on party-line votes in committee.

In the new Senate, Republicans hold a 10-9 majority on the committee, with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as chairman. Hatch has been a strong supporter of President Bush's judicial nominees. The president has already re-submitted the names of the nominees who had been previously blocked, and Hatch has already begun a stepped up schedule of hearings and votes.

At NRL News deadline, a coalition of groups including NARAL and People for the American Way were urging Democratic senators to filibuster to prevent confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, generally considered to the nation's second most-important court.

In a January 31 e-mail alert, NARAL said that Estrada "has pointedly refused to answer the Senate's questions on his view of Roe v. Wade."

The pro-abortion group Feminist Majority said in a January 31 alert, "This is the first test of the filibuster strategy--if we can block this vote, we will be sending a strong message to President Bush, telling him that we won't stand by while he stacks the courts with right-wing, reactionary judges. Estrada has . . . refused to answer questions about his commitment to abortion rights or basic civil rights."

Many observers regard such clashes as mere warm ups for the full-fledged battle that will erupt when a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court. No such vacancy has occurred for nearly nine years--the longest period without a vacancy since the 1820s.

On January 21, NARAL President Kate Michelman declared, in the presence of three Democratic senators who are running for president, that if and when President Bush sends up a Supreme Court nominee, "I fully expect pro-choice senators to filibuster any nominee who does not affirm a woman's constitutional right to choose." (See stories, pages 2 and 3.)

Veto Threats

Over the past year and one-half, the Senate has passed a number of bills to reauthorize or fund various federal agencies with language that would weaken or repeal some existing pro-life policies. In each case, the Bush White House has insisted that the bills would face vetoes unless corrective language was inserted in House-Senate conference committees, and in each case the problems have been fixed.

For example, the Senate last year attached an amendment to a massive defense authorization bill to repeal an existing ban on performing abortions in military medical facilities, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. In a September 24 letter to members of the House-Senate conference committee on that bill, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "The President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill if it changes current law" on the use of military facilities for abortion--the traditional formula for a veto threat. The offensive provision was quietly dropped in conference, and the bill was signed into law on December 2.

In January, the Senate passed an omnibus appropriations bill to fund most government agencies for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The measure contained several objectionable provisions, including a mandate for funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and failed to extend bans on funding of abortions by the Bureau of Prisons and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. The White House sent a letter advising senators, "If the final version of the bill did not include all current law provisions prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill."

As of February 3, a conference committee is still meeting on the measure.