Students weigh in on bill banning partial-birth abortion

Last Tuesday, a ban on "partial-birth" abortion was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives and provoked strong reactions across the country. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was the first federal legislation to be passed regulating abortion since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade in 1973.

The bill defines partial-birth abortion as aborting the fetus "after the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or if the baby is in a breech position, when any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." As a result of the bill, physicians who perform the procedure could face several years in prison.

Throughout the nation members of the Right-to-Life movement rejoiced, while concern grew among pro-choice groups.

At Tufts, student reaction to the bill was also varied, ranging in disagreement over what the legislation actually means, whether the term "partial-birth abortion" should be used at all, and what the actual implications of the ban will be.

Some students are concerned that the legislation is the first step toward revoking abortion rights entirely. According to sophomore Alison Isaacs, the ban is the "first in a series of knocking down women's rights...next, they might limit access to the [birth control] Pill."

Senior Philipp Tsipman, president of the Tufts Republicans, is skeptical about these concerns. "A lot of people who voted for [the ban] are generally for abortion... it's very clear that this is not where they're going," he said. Tsipman adds that he himself is generally "pro-choice," but feels that "partial-birth abortion is something that borders so closely on infanticide that it's unbelievable how it could be legal."

Rachel Hoff, former president of the Tufts Republicans, disagrees. "Having a completely Republican Congress and Presidency, [the illegalization of abortion] is a very valid concern... We may in fact see that in the near future."

Some students are uncomfortable with the government's regulation of reproductive decisions in general. "Making reproductive rights a matter of government control is unsettling," Isaacs said. "I don't trust the rest of America with my body."

"A woman's [medical choices] should be left up to her and her doctor, not the men in suits in Washington D.C.," President and founder of Tufts Voices for Choice Judith Neufeld said.

Tsipman points out, however, that the government legislates on other aspects of medicine. "It's not like we don't regulate medicine at all - a lot of ethically repugnant practices are outlawed," he said.

"Partial-birth abortion is an extremely violent and vicious way of ending the life of an unborn baby," Hoff added.

Some students are opposed to partial-birth abortion but are unhappy with the idea of a total ban. "The idea of partial-birth abortion makes me uncomfortable... because at that point in the pregnancy they're pretty much fully formed babies, but I do believe there are circumstances where it is the better option," sophomore Katie D'Aco said. "Basically, I think they should be legal but restricted to extreme circumstances."

There is much debate over whether the term "partial-birth abortion" should even be used in legislation, with pro-choice groups saying that the term does not exist in medical dictionaries. "There's actually no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It's something anti-choice activists use to describe late-term abortion," Neufeld said.

She feels that the language of the ban is intentionally unclear. "The procedure is not defined," she said.

Others disagree that the term needs to be a medical one. "It's a legal term, and that's what's key here...It's a very specific procedure they are outlawing," Tsipman said.

According to Neufeld, the procedure comprises less than .one percent of abortions, and is usually done to save the mother's life. Many states have passed partial-birth abortion bans in the past, but they have contained provisions for cases in which a mother's life is in danger. The federal ban contains no such provision.

Sophomore and volunteer for Planned Parenthood Marion Phillips argued that the ban "is a violation of the rights secured in Roe v. Wade, and poses serious risks for the health of women."

Others like Tsipman, however, maintain that there are no circumstances when partial-birth abortion is the only medically appropriate procedure. "It's a procedure that is not needed to save the life of the mother," he said.

Tsipman added that a fetus past the point of viability is an "actual living baby." He points out that other laws reflect this belief. "A murder of a pregnant woman counts as double, and we take care that a woman does not damage her body when pregnant," he said.

Neufeld fears that the legislation is the first step in "taking away women's right to choose, and make their own medically complicated choices." Phillips added that "the right to choose is legal, constitutional, and necessary for women."

Hoff said, however, that the ban is not unconstitutional. "Congress is asking the President to support a culture of life...I am very optimistic that President Bush will sign the act [into law]".

The bill banning partial-birth abortion has been passed by the Senate (64-34) and House of Representatives. Before becoming a law, the bill must be signed by President Bush.