The United States Senate Tuesday voted 64 to 34 in favor of a bill that would issue a federal ban on partial-birth abortions that is, abortions performed in a late term of pregnancy. A nearly identical bill passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago with nearly the same ratio (281-142), and President Bush is expected to eagerly sign the bill when it is brought before him.

The Supreme Court of the United States repealed a Nebraska state court ruling on the same grounds in 2000 saying the state could not prohibit doctors from performing the operation, which is often the safest way medically to terminate a pregnancy that is late into term. Justices will now have to rule on the new bill that Bush is expected to sign; advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union are already preparing to lobby against its constitutionality.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize that partial-birth abortions are not procedures that happen as often as overreacting proponents of the bill would have the public believe. In truth, they are making a gigantic, hot button issue out of a very small slice of the abortion conflict one that is entirely a medical issue being perverted by ideology. Doctors must do unpleasant things all the time to save lives, and this uncommon procedure is designed to save the life of the woman. There is no clause in the bill that will soon head to President Bush that defends the health and safety of the woman herself. This is a small issue, easy to attack because it might ensure a victory any victory for anti-abortionists. It is a thinly-veiled attempt to get people to think of all abortions in a similar manner as the grotesque nature of terminating late-in-term pregnancies, with no regard for the safety of the women themselves.

It is absurd to think that the government not patients and their doctors would have the power to standardize when, if ever, a woman could undergo this procedure if she so desires, especially given that the majority of partial-birth abortions are performed for medical reasons. If a woman is going to have an abortion, chances are she is not going to wait around for months to decide as a baby grows inside her. Late-in-term pregnancy terminations happen almost always because of medical complications and concerns for the woman’s own safety.

Plus, for a pro-life defendant to put forth this argument contradicts the pro-life philosophy itself, which in its strictest definition does not allow abortion of any kind. Why would it matter then, if doctors could perform partial-birth abortion or a mid-term procedure of any kind, if no abortion whatsoever is tolerated? We find an inherent flaw in why pro-lifers would argue this point at all next to the pro-life philosophy, it seems rather moot. Such a heated argument about partial birth suggests that those looking to repeal Roe v. Wade are looking for any victory whatsoever that would do anything to damage the 1973 decision. Some voting senators are failing to uphold their responsibility as elected representatives to decide on complicated issues that can’t be boiled down into polls, and instead show no political backbone.

Zealous pro-lifers have shown, in this type of move, extraordinary abuse of both rhetoric and the legislative powers of the U.S. government. Their arguments against partial birth abortion not only contradict the pro-life stance to begin with, but they are using them to as a loophole for attacking Roe v. Wade directly. Unable to repeal the historic Supreme Court decision, those who voted in favor of banning partial-birth abortions are instead attempting to chip away at it, willing to sacrifice even the core of their own argument for the sake of a smaller victory.