ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, September 27, 1996 TAG: 9609270079
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
NOTE: Below
The Senate upheld President Clinton's veto of legislation that for the first time in two decades would have made a form of abortion illegal. But supporters of the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions vowed Thursday to keep the issue alive during the election campaign.
After a wrenching debate, the Senate voted 57-41 to override the veto of the bill banning the late-term abortion procedure, falling nine votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.
Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., sided with the president; Sen. John Warner, R-Va., sought to override the veto.
``The most anti-choice Congress in history tried to hand a pro-choice president an embarrassing defeat less than six weeks before election day. Their campaign failed,'' said Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
But abortion opponents said they had struck a political nerve that would continue to be felt. ``This will immediately become one of the most powerful issues of the fall election,'' said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.
The narrow defeat ``underscores the importance of turning out in large numbers in November,'' said Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. ``It will give huge momentum to pro-family forces in the half-dozen Senate races that will determine who controls the Senate.''
Clinton vetoed the ban in April on the grounds that, while it allowed for exceptions when the mother's life was at risk, it contained no exception to protect the mother's health.
The Senate was the last obstacle to reviving the ban after the House last week voted 285-137 to overturn the veto. Moved by graphic descriptions of the way the fetus is killed and a massive lobbying campaign by anti-abortion groups, 12 Democratic senators voted against Clinton and for the override.
But carrying the day were 35 Democrats, joined by five Republicans, who said the procedure was needed in rare instances to save the life of an endangered mother. They also said anti-abortion groups were using the partial-birth procedure as a first step to undermine the 1973 Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights.
``We are using the lives of a few women to make inflammatory and divisive debates across this country, and I know that many women are as offended as I am,'' said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. ``I extend my apology to the women of this country.''
Senate backers of the ban promised they would not give up.
``We plan to continue the education process and come back next year and try again,'' said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. To keep open the option of having another vote this year, Lott changed his vote to the winning side.
The procedure, medically known as intact dilation and evacuation, involves the partial delivery of the fetus through the birth canal before the doctor kills it by sucking out the brains.
There are no reliable statistics on the number of partial-birth abortions performed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that, of the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions, about 1.3 percent are late-term abortions.
Clinton and abortion-rights groups estimate partial-birth abortions number only several hundred per year, but anti-abortion groups say the number is much higher.
Christina Martin, speaking for GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, said Dole ``stands with America's families in fighting against a practice so heartless that no person of good conscience can support it. Every woman and man in America should demand that Bill Clinton explain his defense of this barbaric procedure.''
The Senate originally passed the ban, 54-44, in December. Democrats said they would gladly support the ban if it included an exception for a mother's health.
``Everyone involved in this debate opposes late-term abortion,'' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who sought to add the health language to the bill. Republicans rejected it, saying doctors would abuse that exception.
The ban would have subjected doctors to up to two years in prison and civil lawsuits for violating the law.
LENGTH: Medium: 81 linesby CNB