Senate bill only prolongs costly abortion battle

House Editorial

The Senate passed a bill Tuesday, banning an abortion procedure popularly known by anti-abortion activists as "partial-birth." Even though President George W. Bush appears eager to sign the legislation, the Senate's action merely ensures another election year in which abortion will act as a culturally divisive issue serving as a distraction from other, more tangible, matters.

Abortion is an emotive issue. Its supporters are driven by a defense of individual rights and privacy, both intangible values. Abortion foes are compelled by a religious conviction to save the lives of the unborn, an equally intangible force, all cutting across socioeconomic lines.

Such a fight lends itself easily to name-calling and demarcations of "good" and "evil." Abortion becomes an ideological litmus test that labels politicians as "pro" or "anti" and then shuts the book, content with this cursory judgment.

When abortion enters the room, debates over foreign policy, taxation, trade, Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, unemployment and the economy are ignored. The abortion debate dominates the American political landscape to the exclusion of all other issues.

Therefore, the inevitable Supreme Court decision declaring Tuesday's measure unconstitutional will provide both sides with the rhetorical firepower needed to slaughter each other verbally and anyone else who calls for a calm, rational discussion of who will be the best president of the United States.

The legislation most likely never will be enforced. Three groups — "the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Abortion Federation" — are planning injunctions and lawsuits against the measure, according to the Oct. 22 issue of The Washington Post.

The Supreme Court already has ruled concerning governmental attempts to ban partial-birth abortions. A 1997 Nebraska law banning the procedure was struck down in June 2000 in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).

The court used two previous cases in its decision — Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Both cases establish, in the opinion of the court in Stenberg, that "a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy," and a government law cannot place an "undue burden" or have the "effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the woman's path."

The Nebraska law was struck down because it banned an abortion procedure that was safer than other options, did not provide an exemption for the health of the mother and imposed an undue burden on the woman.

Supporters of the bill feel that it will meet the Stenberg tests. The measure's writers included "a series of findings that such an abortion is never needed for health reasons," according to The Washington Post.

However, the court specifically addressed such claims in Stenberg. The court found that a division existed among medical experts concerning the need for the partial-birth procedure, but concluded that, since the procedure is considered to be safer than other abortive options, the health of the mother would be put "at an unnecessary risk" if such a procedure was banned.

Nevertheless, none of the above information and analysis will matter next year when the Supreme Court declares the recently passed legislation unconstitutional. Anti-abortion activists will not blame the bill's writers for ignoring the standards set by the court, but angrily will call for a ban on what they consider to be a barbaric procedure.

Stenberg required three years to journey from the statehouse in Lincoln, Neb., to the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. However, highly politicized cases often are expedited through the court system.

The result is that the Supreme Court may announce its decision in this inevitable court case months before the presidential election next year. Such a bombshell would obliterate any hope of conducting logical, intelligent discussions and debates about national issues that desperately need attention.

Such a political battle results in two losers — the health and strength of this nation and the American public. Both will receive a presidential caretaker chosen on the basis of one issue, an issue that matters little in the day-to-day affairs of the country.