Senate should reject flawed 'partial-birth' abortion bill

San Jose Mercury News: The legislation being considered by the Senate on "partial-birth" abortion has two fatal flaws: It intrudes on decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor and it fails to consider a woman's health.
Those are fundamental reasons why the bill should be rejected.
Emotions run high whenever abortion legislation is considered. And this particular procedure, known as "intact dilation and evacuation," understandably generates unusually strong feelings. Advocates of the ban describe what they view as a "gruesome" procedure in which the fetus is "partially delivered" before being aborted. They argue that the health of the woman is seldom or never a consideration.
Anguish
Opponents invoke stories of anguish from women who agonized about their decision to have the procedure and who say health risks were a consideration in making their difficult choice.
No one knows for certain how many of the procedures are performed each year.
In 2000, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that receives funding from Planned Parenthood, surveyed abortion providers nationwide and estimated that 2,200 such procedures were done that year, by 31 physicians. If accurate, that would amount to less than 1 percent of all abortions in the United States. Supporters of the ban argue that the numbers are considerably higher.
Although both of California's senators are fighting the bill, the Senate appears destined to pass the legislation after its October recess. President Bush is promising to sign it. That means the legislation is likely destined to be decided by the Supreme Court, which in 2000 ruled on a similar Nebraska law.
Women's health
The court will no doubt consider one of the most telling moments during the negotiations over the legislation's final language. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., offered an amendment that would include an exemption when a woman's health is at risk.
Republicans promptly responded by rejecting the amendment.
The failure of a similar amendment was the reason the Supreme Court spurned the Nebraska law. And it's more than sufficient reason to for this legislation to suffer the same fate.