A bill to ban “partial-birth abortion” passed both houses of the Virginia General Assembly and has gone to Governor Mark Warner for his approval. The Governor has not indicated whether or not he will sign it.

The bill, HB 1154, calls the procedure to be banned “medically induced infanticide” and uses a somewhat different description of the banned procedure than previously used for “partial-birth abortion.” The bill describes two cases: one where a “living fetus” or a substantial portion thereof is delivered into the vagina and the other where it is surgically accessed in utero by Caesarian section. In either case, if the purpose is “to kill the fetus,” the procedure is banned. The bill specifies that “the term ‘medically induced infanticide’ shall not include any of the following abortion procedures: the dilation and evacuation procedure involving dismemberment prior to removal, the suction curettage procedure or the suction aspiration procedure.”

The bill as originally proposed by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) had no exception clause but was rejected by the House of Delegates because of concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart rejecting the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban. Del. Marshall then proposed a health exception clause for circumstances where the procedure is “deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” defined further to mean that “in appropriate medical judgment, she suffers from an illness, injury, disease, disorder or other medical condition that so complicates pregnancy as to necessitate the performance of such a procedure in order to avert her death or serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

The bill was originally considered by the House Courts of Justice Committee, which modified the original wording and passed it to the House on a 15-7 vote. After adding the above health exception, the House passed the bill by a vote of 75-25.

In the Senate, the bill was assigned to the Courts of Justice Committee which removed the above health exception clause and replaced it with a clause that would allow the banned procedure “when, in that physician’s good faith medical judgment, that procedure provides greater safety for the life or health of the woman.” Courts of Justice then referred the amended bill to the Finance Committee, from which it was reported out on February 28 on a 14-2 vote. The full Senate rejected this version, however, and instead passed the House-passed version of the bill by a 26-12 margin on March 7.

Commenting on the bill’s passage, VSHL President Brenda Fastabend said, “I am pleased the legislators are as outraged as we are about this legally protected killing.”

Published in VSHL Lifesaver, April, 2002