[ OUR OPINION ]

Abortion bill dismisses
safety of women

THE ISSUE Congress again is preparing a measure to restrict abortions by banning a medical procedure.

LEGISLATION approved by the U.S. House that would ban a certain type of abortion procedure dismisses the fundamental right of women to make their own decisions about childbearing and attempts to discard a medical procedure necessary to protect a woman's health simply by saying it isn't.

The measure, which the Republican-led Congress is poised to send to an eager President Bush, addresses late-term abortion, but its supporters hope the inevitable legal challenge will present an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that properly recognizes a woman's right to privacy.

The court already has rejected as unconstitutional a similar Nebraska law banning so-called "partial birth abortions." Nonetheless, abortion opponents are gambling that with pending retirements, the court's makeup will change since Bush is certain to appoint members more agreeable to their views. Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, which opposes abortion, said the bill's passage "is monumental in that it represents the first real restriction on any form of abortion enacted into law in 30 years."

That tactic aside, the manner in which the bill was crafted to dodge the problem the court found with the Nebraska law is cynical, misleading and ludicrous. The authors addressed the court's concern that Nebraska failed to provide an exception to a mother's health by declaring that the procedure is never essential -- completely counter to medical standards -- thereby invalidating the need to consider a woman's well-being. As Illinois Rep. Mark S. Kirk said, "Congress cannot suddenly claim to have medical degrees" in trying to proclaim the procedure extraneous.

Some late-term abortions are performed because of serious birth defects or because a woman's life is at risk. The measure defines a procedure that is seldom used in such cases, but the vague language also could be applied to criminalize other, more common procedures and subject doctors to fines and prison terms. Moreover, it sets aside a doctor's ethical and professional obligation to give the highest consideration to a patient's health.

Congress approved the ban twice before, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. The Senate in March cleared a near-identical bill and both measures are being reworked to reconcile the differences before being sent to Bush for his signature. When that happens, privacy-rights advocates can be expected to challenge the issue in court, where the bill's supporters hope they will find more sympathetic ears.

Meanwhile, abortion opponents will continue their relentless effort to insert their views and themselves into a matter in which they have no standing, just as politicians insert their judgments into private situations that should be left to a woman and her doctor.