Crafting a bill that satisfies existing legal constraints would have to be worded in a way that allows some abortions that the movement wants outlawed. We don't want to go through the travail of passing the ban again only to have the Supreme Court strike it down . . . So there are several different ideas being considered on how a bill can be drafted that would both be a bona fide ban on partial-birth abortion and at the same time address the court's decision . . . At the heart of the dilemma is last June's 5-4 ruling that overturned the Nebraska ban. The court followed the precedent set in 1973's seminal Roe vs. Wade decision that said any abortion ban must include an exception to allow the procedure if it is best for a woman's health.
Medical experts say intact removal is often safer for the mother because it reduces bleeding.
Antiabortion activists long have argued that the health exemption has been too broadly defined, and some see revamping the partial-birth abortion bill as a chance to get the court to accept a narrower definition. But narrowing the definition of health would fail to satisfy many powerful antiabortion activists. Under still another scenario that some antiabortion advocates are leaning toward, Congress would pass a bill largely identical to the previous measure approved, but with a contingency clause saying it would not take effect until the Supreme Court reversed itself on partial-birth abortion. For Bush, political analysts see the quandary confronting antiabortion activists as a mixed blessing. But the lack of movement on a partial-birth abortion ban could intensify the pressure on Bush if a Supreme Court opening occurs during his administration.