After both the U.S. House and Senate approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with June 4th passage by the House, quick action was expected. Instead, pro-abortion Democrats found a new method to obstruct the bill. They refused to appoint conference committee members to resolve one key difference between the House and Senate bills. The Senate version had an amendment that endorsed the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. This roadblock was finally overcome in September after eight more hours of debate, and the amendment was removed by the conference committee.

The finalized bill to ban partial birth abortion was approved by the House of Representatives on an overwhelming vote of 281-142 on October 2nd. Based on previous votes, the bill is likely to be supported by 64 or 65 of the 100 U.S. senators, and President Bush is eager to sign the ban into law. Nevertheless, Democratic senators who oppose the bill are reportedly insisting on extensive further debate before allowing a final vote in the Senate.  This continued obstructionism will delay final Senate approval of the bill until later in October. Will the ban reach President Bush’s desk by the time you are reading this article?

Regardless of these delays, abortion supporters have apparently decided that the sky is falling. Reaction to the “imminent” Federal ban on partial birth abortion became hysterical after the June 4th House vote. A June 9th Chicago Sun-Times editorial maintained that “the language in the proposals is sufficiently vague so that it confuses doctors as to exactly what they can and cannot do in the operating room.” Only someone who has not read the bill could make such a claim with even a sliver of sincerity. The definition provided is almost graphic in detail.

A June 10th letter to the editor from the ACLU of Chicago in the Tribune stated that “ideologues have placed their political agenda ahead of women’s health.” The ACLU overlooks the American Medical Association’s (AMA) conclusion that this abortion procedure is not “accepted medical practice.” The AMA even recommends against using the procedure in one of its own expert scientific reports. How can banning such a procedure be a threat to women’s health?

NARAL Pro-Choice America started an advertising campaign to warn citizens of the imminent loss of “the right to abortion” unless they take action. Somehow this dire warning seems inconsistent with their contention that the Supreme Court will find the ban on partial birth abortion unconstitutional anyway. Of course, they also maintain that use of this procedure is extremely rare. If its use is that rare, it must not be too important. Apparently, abortion supporters do not believe their own statements. In this situation, it is hard to cover up the truth about such a gruesome procedure.