TURNIING POINT: BILLS BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

The debate, both in Washington and in Jefferson City, on legislation that would ban partial-birth abortions has been rancorous and, at times, unbelievable. In short, proponents of the ban say there are no medical reasons for taking the life of a full-term baby still in the womb of its mother. Those who favor the procedure in certain circumstances argue the decision ought to be left to the mother and her physician.

These are old arguments. Very little new information has been produced in all of the legislative hubbub. But this year is a turning point.

-- On the national level, congressional supporters of a ban on the partial-birth procedure have gained the backing of the American Medical Association, which gave its endorsement after making sure the proposed bill included protection for doctors who might have to make a quick decision during a normal delivery to abort the fetus. President Clinton is holding fast to his vow to veto any such bill -- just as he previously did, citing faulty information about the necessity for such a procedure and how often it is performed.

-- On the state level, Missouri's lawmakers in the recently ended regular session sent a bill banning partial-birth abortions to Gov. Mel Carnahan. Although he hasn't said outright that he will veto the bill, the governor, who is pro-choice, has made it clear he has concerns, because there is no provision for allowing the procedure if the mother's life is in jeopardy.

While the U.S. Senate has approved a new bill to ban partial-birth abortions, the resolve in that chamber isn't veto-proof. The legslation now goes to the U.S. House for consideration.

Both chambers of Missouri's General Assembly passed the bill now on Carnahan's desk by large margins, far more votes than needed to override a gubernatorial veto should Carnahan decide to go that route. However, Carnahan has said he might "work hard" to change the minds of enough legislators that his veto would stand.

This is one of the interesting things about the debate on partial-birth abortions as viewed within the overall framework of abortion. While legislators all over the country continue to allow abortion decisions to be made by mothers and the doctors early in the pregnancy and sometimes much later than that, there is a decided distaste specifcally for partial-birth abortions, so named because a baby is delivered until its head is accessilble so the skull can be collapsed, which means the baby that is killed midway through the procedure after being partially delivered.

As gruesome as this sounds, some doctors have advocated the procedure in cases where the fetus has so many things wrong with it that the chances of survival after delivery are slim. One reason so many pro-choice advocates are voting against the partial-birth procedure, though, is they know full well that it doesn't take nine months in the womb to determine if a fetus is afflicted in such a way that it will be horribly deformed or diseased if delivered at full term -- or that the life of the mother is at stake.

The fact that the governor and the president still believe partial-birth abortion is a medical necessity underscores one of two things: Either they are accepting incorrect information that is being given to them, or they are purposely ignoring the facts for political reasons. In either case, this is another example of the values and goals shared by the president and Missouri's governor. It is almost as if they have decided privately to uphold each other's positions -- no matter what.