The issue of abortion has been in the public eye recently more than usual. There was speculation during this past spring that one if not two Supreme Court justices was likely to resign soon, and that brought up the topic of potential Supreme Court nominees and Senate confirmation hearings, in which abortion is always a controversial issue. However, that possibility has not developed, so the topic never went beyond the point of discussion. What did reach the floor of the Senate this summer was a partial birth abortion ban bill. This bill was very similar to a bill that during the Clinton years passed easily in both the Senate and the House (by a veto-proof majority in the House, in fact) before being vetoed by President Clinton despite widespread popular support. The re-introduction and then the inevitable passage of this legislation stirred a lot of discussion on the issue of abortion. When it was apparent that the bill would finally succeed, the more radical among those in the pro-abortion crowd moaned loudly, while pro-lifers were ecstatic, and understandably so. Anyone who has been following the pro-life cause for years knows that getting any pro-life measure through both houses of Congress and getting a presidential signature has never been easy. This is, in fact, the first case I know of since Roe v. Wade in which a national law has been made banning any type or class of abortion. At first glance, then, this appears to be a milestone, and so it is ... but largely a symbolic one.

When one actually examines the partial birth abortion bill recently passed, there is one very interesting aspect to it: for all the political attention paid to this measure, there is no evidence that it will actually prevent any real world abortions. This is not because the courts will never allow the law to take effect, although that is likely enough as well. No, the trouble is that no one can seem to come up with any circumstances under which partial birth abortion is "medically indicated." Properly speaking, of course, abortion is never medically indicated. Looked at from the perspective of the unborn child, the phrase simply sounds absurd: "We are trying to decide whether killing you is medically indicated." Right. However, in the context of comparing different kinds of abortion, the phrase "medically indicated" is used to refer to the advisability of choosing one procedure rather than another based upon the impact on the health of the mother. According to many doctors, there do not appear to be any cases in which a partial birth abortion would be medically indicated in this sense. Therefore, even if the partial birth abortion ban is not stopped in court, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that most if not all of those who would otherwise undergo partial birth abortions will simply undergo some other type of abortion procedure. The partial birth abortion ban is unlikely to save lives directly.

There is another misconception that seems to be floating around in some pro-life circles regarding this law. Some people see this bill as some sort of favor to the pro-life movement from President Bush. That is not really accurate. This bill was not truly controversial. The fact that a person supported this bill did not even reliably indicate that the person was pro-life. It was supported by a number of Democrats, including some Democrats who have been clearly pro-abortion on every other issue related to abortion. It passed by a veto-proof majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, as it did during the Clinton presidency. Public opinion polling on the issue consistently showed that the ban was supported by a large majority of the population. The only people for whom supporting this bill might have been at all politically risky are Democrats, because of the enormous power of the pro-abortion lobby in the Democratic Party. For President Bush, signing this bill is a political plus: he made his pro-life supporters happy, and it is highly improbable that he alienated any supporters, since the opponents of the ban were so vehemently pro-abortion that they would never consider supporting him anyway. Also, passing the ban was not politically difficult in any way, since far more than enough votes to pass the ban had been in place behind it for years. This was a painless win for the President. He spent no political capital on the issue.

Now, the point here is not that the partial birth abortion ban is worthless. It is a symbolic milestone, and that is meaningful. One can imagine a host of possible positive consequences in the future from the enactment of this law, not because it accomplishes anything in itself, but just because it became law. This gives hope to the pro-life movement that victories are attainable. Also, it shows politicians that they can vote for a pro-life measure, and the world as they know it will not come to an end. NARAL is not omnipotent. Furthermore, the popular support which the partial birth abortion ban enjoyed, well beyond the borders of the pro-life movement itself, indicates that a large majority of the population may at least be open to restrictions on abortion, if the full reality of what is being done can be brought home to them about all types of abortion, as it was about the specific case of partial birth abortion. Perhaps, also, the very existence of a debate about partial birth abortion already has made some people face the reality of abortion, realizing that no abortion is really different in what it does than the procedure of partial birth abortion, which so many people abhor because of its blatantly obvious gruesomeness. There are probably more potential positive effects that one could list. This is just a list of a few reasons why the partial birth abortion ban is an excellent thing for the pro-life cause.

However, pro-lifers still should not allow themselves to think that this ban is something that it is not. This is not even a partial victory in the battle to prevent abortions in the real world through political means. Furthermore, this is not a major substantive step from Republican politicians on the issue of abortion, the kind of step that pro-lifers have been awaiting for such a long time. Again, no political capital was spent here. For all the Republican rhetoric on abortion, Republican control of the government still has not led to laws that directly prevent abortions, and Republican presidents gave us most of the Supreme Court justices who now make any such law almost impossible. If pro-lifers wish to build on the important symbolic triumph represented by the partial birth abortion ban, they must refuse to be satisfied by this symbolic triumph. Pro-lifers have given very real election victories to countless Republicans, including President Bush. They must therefore demand real victories in return, both in legislation and, most important of all, in the Supreme Court nomination process which provides the most realistic way to escaping the tyranny of Roe v. Wade.