On October 21 the U.S. Senate voted narrowly (51-47) to affirm Roe v. Wade. The non-binding resolution stated, "It is the sense of the Congress that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an important constitutional right and such a decision should not be overturned." That same day the Senate also voted 63-34 to ban so-called partial birth abortion (the intact dilation and extraction procedure, which is rarely performed, but is often the best medical option for late-term abortions). President Clinton is expected to veto this measure for the third time, and the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Both of Tennessee's Senators voted against the resolution to affirm Roe v. Wade. They also joined the majority in voting for the "partial birth" abortion ban. Senator John McCain, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, also voted for the ban but did not vote on the question of Roe vs. Wade. A spokesman said McCain was en route from a campaign stop to vote against the Roe v. Wade resolution when Senate leaders moved up the time of the vote. On a campaign stop the following day, his rival George W. Bush stated his support for a "partial-birth" abortion ban.
Sadly, Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, one of the handful of moderate Republican Senators who joined with Democrats in the resolution supporting Roe v. Wade, died of a heart attack a few days after the vote. Chafee was a consistent supporter of abortion rights. Although he did not participate in the October 21 vote on the "partial-birth" abortion bill, he had previously opposed the ban.
Earlier this year the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report finding that women generally give abortion providers high marks for the quality of care they receive. According to a survey of over 2,000 women who underwent abortions, 60 percent of women rate the quality of their care as "excellent." Another third said their care was "very good" or "good." In addition to finding that women are highly satisfied with their abortion care, the survey determined that the quality of abortion care is comparable to that of other outpatient surgery.
Women's high level of satisfaction with their abortion experience stands in contrast with the claims made by supporters of legislative initiatives around the country that target abortion providers for more stringent regulation than is applied to other medical practices. Supporters of measures to place special requirements on abortion clinics claim that the requirements are needed to ensure women's safety. The clinics and pro-choice groups believe that extra requirements are intended to make abortion more difficult to obtain - and too expensive for many women. The Kaiser Family Foundation study suggests that clinic patients are not clamoring for additional rules to protect them:
-- 96 percent of women who had abortions said they would recommend their abortion provider to a friend or family member;
-- 85 percent said they received as much information and counseling as they wanted; indeed, nine percent indicated they had received more information than they wanted.
One of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing this session is a challenge to the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. This 1994 law was enacted to prevent what had been the standard practice at many state motor vehicle bureaus of providing, for a fee, personal information on owners of registered vehicles to anyone who could produce a license plate number Anti-choice demonstrators had used this tool to obtain the names, addresses, phone numbers and other personal information on clients and staff of clinics that perform abortions. Threatening letters, picketing and "wanted" posters often were the result of these demonstrators obtaining this data.
South Carolina has filed suit to overturn the law, challenging the right of the federal government to intrude on what the state perceives as its prerogatives. The lower federal court agreed with the state that this law encroaches on states' rights.
Because of the history of using motor vehicle records to harass clinic personnel and patients, prochoice groups are among the national organizations that have filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold the federal law.
- Source: Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
A new trend in anti-choice legislation is measures to grant protected legal status to the fetus. On September 30 the U.S. House of Representatives voted 254-172 for the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (H.R. 2436), which would create a new, separate criminal offense to punish anyone who injures or causes the death of a fetus during the commission of a federal crime. That same day, S. 1673, the Senate companion bill, was introduced in the Senate.
Under this bill, someone could be prosecuted for harming a fetus, regardless of whether or not the same person is prosecuted for harming the mother. House supporters repeatedly stated that the bill was not designed to impact a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but they spent most of their debate time talking about the "unborn baby's" inherent right to life, saying that ending a life in the womb is "murder" and that "life begins at conception." A Planned Parenthood Federation of America statement charged: "This bill separates the pregnant woman from her fetus in an attempt to establish rights of personhood on the fetus. This unprecedented attempt to grant the same legal status to all stages of prenatal development as that of the woman is further chipping away at the rights established in Roe v. Wade."
Before voting on the bill, the House defeated (by a vote of 201-224) a substitute offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) that would have increased penalties for people convicted of assaulting pregnant women without granting independent legal status to the fetus.
Source: Planned Parenthood Federation of America