The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on March 25 to discuss the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760). Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot (R-OH) opened the hearing, saying that a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that partial-birth abortion is an inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) disagreed, saying that consideration of H.R. 760 results in a “bad combination of Members who want to play doctor and Members who also want to play Supreme Court.”
Speaking in support of the ban, Gerard V. Bradley of the University of Notre Dame Law School stated that H.R. 760 “includes a jurisdictional element…which…satisfies constitutional requirements.” He added that the Nebraska law was “shoddy” because of its “use of the phrase ‘substantial portion’ of a living unborn child.” According to Mr. Bradley, H.R. 760 “avoids entirely the asserted defects of the Nebraska law. This bill’s definition of the prohibited procedure…overcomes the vagueness and uncertain application of the analogous Nebraska language.”
Simon Heller, the lead trial attorney in the Nebraska case, Stenberg v. Carhart, disagreed saying that “H.R. 760 is not a ban on one clearly defined, late-term abortion method….Instead, it is an extreme measure that sacrifices women’s health.” He argued that the bill does not allow physicians and patients to determine which technique is “the safest and most appropriate.” Rather, H.R. 760 “places it in the hands of federal prosecutors.” He concluded, saying the government “must respect the reasonable medical judgment of physicians and their women patients.”
