the likely death or grievous damage to the health of the woman. (Partial 6) A major difference of opinion existed in situations where the life of the woman is not in jeopardy but her health would be grievously damaged without a partial birth abortion. These are situations in which the woman would be severely disabled or would suffer long term health problems. However, the ambiguity of long term health problems led many Republicans to believe that the amendment could be interpreted to allow partial birth abortions in the case of depression, or emotional distress over continuing the pregnancy. In this case, the Republican proposal would not allow a PBA, and the Democratic amendment would allow the procedure if the woman wanted it. The 1997 proposal was passed by the House, revised and passed by the Senate, passed again by the House, vetoed by President Clinton, returned to the House where the veto was overridden by more than a two-thirds majority, and finally sent to the Senate where a two-thirds majority was missed by three votes (Kellman 1). It is time to stop playing games, and pass a piece of legislation everyone can agree on without obscuring the intent of the bill to one side or the other. Despite all the differences of opinion in the Congress, there was also a large degree of consensus. There is a general agreement that PBAs should be allowed if it is necessary to save the life of the mother and should be allowed if the fetus is dead. There is also agreement that PBAs should not be allowed for ordinary health reasons, or in cases of rape or incest. Added to this should also be a provision which would allow partial birth abortions in instances where the fetus would be born severely malformed and would die within hours or days of birth. Specific instances of this would include where the child would be born with only a brain stem and not a functioning brain. If the baby were to be delivered normally, it would die in a few d...
