Today Congress passed H.R. 1122, legislation that would make it a federal crime for a physician to perform a "partial-birth" abortion, which is not a specific method of abortion but potentially includes many common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy. The "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997" was adopted by the House last March and passed by the Senate in May with slight amendments, which were made in order to obtain endorsement of the bill by the American Medical Association (AMA). The House passed the amended version today by a vote of 296-132. The bill will now be sent to President Clinton, who last year vetoed the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1996."

This bill represents an unprecedented Congressional attempt to ban some abortions and to directly attack the bedrock principles established in Roe v. Wade...

The AMA-supported Senate amendments do not address fundamental flaws in H.R. 1122:

1. H.R. 1122 ignores 25 years of Supreme Court precedent requiring laws to draw a distinction between abortions before viability and those performed after viability. This ban applies throughout all stages of pregnancy.
2. H.R. 1122 ignores 25 years of Supreme Court precedent requiring laws to respect a woman's choice of procedure pre-viability and to make exceptions for health or life after viability.
3. H.R. 1122 violates the Fifth Amendment by subjecting physicians to arbitrary imprisonment for providing medical care to women.

This bill represents an unprecedented Congressional attempt to ban some abortions and to directly attack the bedrock principles established in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Roe and Casey, the Supreme Court held that government may not restrict abortion prior to viability or impose abortion restrictions after viability that would pose a significant health risk to a woman or require a physician to compromise a patient's health. H.R. 1122 does not limit the restriction to only post-viability abortions, and makes no exceptions for a woman's health.

H.R. 1122 is unconstitutionally vague:

The legislation subjects the physician who performs a "partial birth abortion" to criminal and civil liability but fails to identify clearly which abortion procedures are banned. Under this bill, physicians would not be able to accurately determine what action could subject them to imprisonment or fines, which could ultimately prevent them from exercising their best medical judgment. The bill would have a chilling effect on physicians' willingness to perform abortions, resulting in unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

The term "partial-birth" is defined only in legislation; the term does not actually exist anywhere in medical literature. As described in H.R. 1122, "partial-birth" abortion is an abortion in which the living fetus is "partial birth abortion" before its demise. Although sponsors of the bill have focussed on a specific abortion procedure referred to medically as intact dilation and evacuation (D&E) or dilation and extraction (D&X), used primarily to terminate pregnancies after twenty-weeks gestation, these procedures are not referenced anywhere in the bill. Furthermore, the bill's author Representative Charles Canady admits that "partial birth abortion"covers more procedures than just D&E or D&X.

Federal Judges have overturned similar state legislation:

Although criminal bans on "partial-birth" abortion procedures have been passed by many state legislatures, most of them have been successfully blocked in court by the Center for Reproductive Rights and other pro-choice groups. Because the laws are so broadly constructed, judges have ruled they are unconstitutional. For example, when Arkansas passed legislation nearly identical to H.R. 1122 last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law in court. As a result of our lawsuit, the federal district court blocked the Arkansas statute from going into effect, finding that the vagueness of the ban violated due process of law because physicians would not understand what it meant.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) still strongly opposes H.R. 1122, despite the AMA endorsement. According to ACOG "the language of the bill is vague, does not use medical terminology, and... fails to include an exception for the protection of the health of the woman. We believe that the individual physician treating an individual patient must be free to make decisions about what medical treatment is best for that patient."

"H.R. 1122 eviscerates the concept of viability and would criminalize commonly used abortion procedures throughout pregnancy," said Janet Benshoof, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This legislation ignores the Constitution, which has always protected pregnant women's ability to make the best medical decisions in consultation with their families and doctors."

The Center for Reproductive Rights is an independent, non-profit legal organization dedicated to promoting women's reproductive health and rights. Through litigation, research, policy analysis, and public education, the Center for Reproductive Rights' domestic and international programs seek to ensure that all women have access to appropriate and freely chosen reproductive health services.