Three suits were filed yesterday seeking to stop the partial birth abortion ban passed by Congress last month. This is an usual tactic considering the fact that the legislation hasn't even been signed. You can read about the suits here. A third suit has been filed in San Francisco.
I think this litigation is going to be interesting to follow. The legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, defines partial birth abortion:
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
1.(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
In addition, Congress provided that this ban would not apply to a situation in which the mother would be put at risk.
This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
The opponents view this legislation as an attack on abortion. They don't understand that Congress voted two to one to ban a specific and exceedingly gruesome procedure.
Comments