Terry Everett, June 16, 2003

On June 4, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation prohibiting partial birth abortions. The vote would have seemed routine. After all, this was the fifth time in a decade that the House has voted for the ban, with the previous four times seeing it ultimately fail. But there was a very distinct difference about the vote this month. This bill will likely be enacted into law.

Partial birth abortions involve a procedure so grisly that even many who support abortion rights oppose them. It is so heinous that a recent Gallop poll showed that 70 percent of Americans feel it should be banned. And when it came time for a vote two weeks ago, 62 Democrats joined 220 Republicans in the U.S. House to prohibit this dangerous medical procedure unless it is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from pregnancy itself.

A partial birth abortion, as defined by the House-passed legislation, is a procedure in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.

One common argument among supporters of partial birth abortions is that they are rarely performed, and only to protect the mother's life. However, it is estimated that some 3,000 to 10,000 of these "rare" abortions are performed annually. Furthermore, a select panel convened by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that there is no legitimate or compelling medical need that would require the use of this procedure.

Living in a civilized society, I believe that every human being has an obligation to protect the sanctity of life and liberty, especially for those who are helpless to protect themselves. Accordingly, I was an original cosponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (HR 760). This legislation would make performing this type of abortion a federal crime, unless it is necessary in order to save the life of the mother. Those who choose to perform partial birth abortions for any other reason will face fines and prison sentences.

This bill, which passed the House on June 4, follows similar legislation also passed in the U.S. Senate on March 13. As we have seen, getting the House and Senate to pass a partial birth abortion ban has not been enough. Over the last decade, both chambers stepped up and passed bans only to see them vetoed by then President Bill Clinton. More recently, a liberal-controlled Senate also stood in our way.

But such is no longer the case. Now that both Houses of Congress have passed partial birth abortion bans, all that lies ahead is a conference to iron out the differences in the two bills and then the President's approval. Unlike in the past, our current president has stated that he will sign a partial birth abortion ban into law.

The practice of performing partial birth abortions is a national tragedy akin to infanticide. These gruesome and inhuman acts against helpless infants must stop, and I am hopeful that a partial birth abortion ban will soon become law.

Congressman Terry Everett represents the Second Congressional District of Alabama in the U.S. House of Representatives.