On Wednesday morning, President George W. Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 into law, hoping to create what he called a "culture of life" in America.
Meanwhile, we are still at war in Iraq. Hmm, apparently this "culture of life" doesn't extend that far.
Regardless, this ban is an infringement on the rights of American women.
The PBA ban blocks any overt medical procedure that aborts a fetus after the entire fetal head is outside the woman's body through a medical procedure called intact dilation and extraction. Medical D&X itself is a rare procedure, only used in the second or third trimester and out of absolute necessity. According to The New York Times, 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
Under the terms of the act, any doctor found guilty of performing such a procedure is subject to a two-year jail sentence and could have civil action taken against him or her.
But the language of the act is purposefully vague and "could outlaw other, more commonly used abortion procedures," according to The New York Times.
Unfortunately for the doctors, this vague wording makes it very difficult to determine exactly what actions would merit prosecution. For example, the act would prevent a physician from providing the necessary care to a woman having a second trimester miscarriage because aspects of the assistance could violate the ban.
The ban also would prevent a woman from seeking a termination upon discovery of a serious fetal abnormality during the second trimester. Despite advances in modern technology, it is often impossible to determine some types of abnormalities until later stages of fetal development, namely during amniocentesis.
Another dangerous aspect of the act is that it only allows D&X when the woman's life is in danger. It fails to permit termination for a woman whose health - but not life - is in danger.
What happens to a woman with a heart condition that gets progressively worse over the course of the pregnancy to the point where she may suffer cardiac arrest but might survive?
A physician cannot certify that she will suffer a heart attack before it happens. The physician stating that there is a health risk it is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the ban and allow her to terminate.
The ban also would force women unnecessarily to undergo risky medical procedures in order to abort. This is due to the fact that the ban takes away a termination option that possibly could be the safest for a given situation.
Legislative vagueness aside, the ban is also an enormous step backward to the days of dangerous back-alley abortions. Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a woman's right to choose has been upheld by courts nationwide, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court.
Just three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska statute that nearly was identical to the PBA ban Bush just signed. But rather than respect the decisions of the U.S. court system, good ol' Dubya issued a stern warning to the judicial check on his branch of government: "The executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts."
Is it just me, or is that a very disturbing statement? Remember, this is the same man who encouraged terrorist activity with his infamous "bring 'em on" statement.
One last major flaw in this legislation is the fact that it unfairly targets teenage women.
A large portion of women seeking termination during the second trimester is teenagers. This is because young women often can be unaware of the symptoms of pregnancy and may not realize they are pregnant until the second trimester. Banning the procedure that is often the only option for these women places an undue burden on their right to choose.
Hopefully the courts will come to their senses and step in and block this legislation before it can do too much damage. This drastic, dangerous and irresponsible attack on women's rights in America needs to be stopped.
Grant Klinzman is a journalism junior. Reach him at grant.klinzman@asu.edu.
