Late-Term Abortion Debate Reignited Clinton Hints Support For A Democratic Proposal That Is Called A ‘Sham’ By Abortion Opponents

President Clinton reignited an incendiary debate over late-term abortions on Tuesday, appearing to embrace a Senate Democrat’s proposal that would outlaw all third-term abortions except those performed to avert “grievous” harm to a mother’s health.

Just as abortion foes were preparing to launch a legislative assault on the grisly late-term procedure they call “partial-birth” abortion, Clinton caused them to delay floor action by throwing his support behind a Democratic alternative crafted by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Daschle’s proposal theoretically could bar virtually all late-term procedures conducted after a fetus reaches “viability,” a milestone usually achieved between the 24th and 26th weeks - or third trimester - of pregnancy. The ban on “partial-birth” abortions, in contrast, would outlaw a single procedure - but one that is performed as early as the 20th week of gestation, well within the second-trimester time period currently protected by the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision.

While the Daschle proposal appears to have the potential to outlaw more abortions, it, in fact, would affect only the 600 total third-trimester procedures performed annually. Abortion opponents have denounced it as a political subterfuge designed to derail the effort to ban “partial-birth” abortions, also known medically as “intact dilation and extraction,” in which a fetus is killed after partial removal from the womb. They claim many thousands of such abortions occur each year in the second trimester.

Under Daschle’s alternative, a doctor could abort a fetus beyond the point of viability only if the mother’s physical health were in substantial danger. Daschle and others believe that would narrow the “health exemptions” adopted by the 41 states that have limited access to abortions of viable fetuses.

As interpreted by the courts, the broad health exemptions in place in those states come into play if, in the opinion of a doctor, a woman would suffer emotional distress or depression as a consequence of continued pregnancy. Daschle’s proposal would raise that bar by requiring a doctor to attest that a woman’s physical health would be “grievously injured” by the continued pregnancy.

But abortion foes called Daschle’s exemptions a “sham” which would fail to stop any abortions currently being performed. Doctors providing the abortions would be the ones to determine whether a woman and the fetus she carries have met the standards laid out in the bill, and their judgments would not be subject to review. Under such conditions, say anti-abortion activists, few abortion providers would deny a woman the abortion she seeks.

“This empowers the doctor to kill the baby whenever he certifies that it was necessary,” said Doug Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. Johnson called Daschle’s proposal “phony” and charged that the Democratic leader “has done a masterful job of marketing it.”

Indeed, on the battleground of abortion politics, the amendment crafted by Daschle - a lawmaker with a mixed record on abortion - appears to be a flanking maneuver. On Tuesday, it threw sponsors of the “partial-birth abortion” ban into considerable disarray, prompting some to question whether they could continue to hold the political high ground with a bill that might appear to be more limited in scope than Daschle’s.

After the Senate’s Republican leadership opted to delay the start of debate until at least Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., allowed that “some aspects” of Daschle’s bill “are worth considering.”

Senate approval of the “partial birth” abortion ban is not in doubt. The measure, adopted by the House in March, won a majority of Senate votes in 1995, and anti-abortion forces picked up at least four additional votes in the most recent election. But Lott and others acknowledged Tuesday they do not have the 67 votes necessary to override an expected veto by President Clinton.

In addition to upending the abortion debate and confounding his opposition, Daschle has provided President Clinton with significant political cover on an issue that has deeply divided the American public.

When he vetoed legislation last year that would have banned the “partial birth” procedure last year, Clinton said he would back a measure that would make all late-term abortions harder to get if it also provided sufficient exemptions for a woman whose health or future fertility is imperiled by a continued pregnancy.

Daschle, who said Tuesday he worked without direct White House consultations, crafted just such a proposal, aiming for the abortion debate’s slim middle ground. He broadened the “partial-birth” measure offered by staunch antiabortion forces and tightened a measure offered by ardently pro-abortion rights lawmakers, including California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. The Boxer-Feinstein amendment would have banned all abortions performed after viability, but kept in place the more broadly-defined health exemption that now stands in most states.