Thursday, July 1, 2004

'Partial birth' ban in effect


Appeals Court action clears way to apply anti-abortion law passed four years ago

By Dan Horn
Enquirer staff writer

Ohio's ban on a controversial late-term abortion procedure officially takes effect this week, nearly four years after lawmakers approved it.

The ban on what is known as "partial-birth" abortion has never been enforced because legal challenges have kept it tied up in the federal courts.

But the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the last of those challenges in December when it declared Ohio's ban constitutional. The Appeals Court issued its official mandate Monday, clearing the way for authorities to begin enforcing the ban.

"It's been a long journey," said Denise Mackura, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. "We are delighted that unborn children in Ohio will no longer be subjected to the partial-birth abortion procedure."

Abortion foes have said Ohio's law is important because it could become a model for similar bans in other states, many of which also have been mired in long legal battles.

Few doctors perform the procedure in Ohio, but one who does, Martin Haskell, sued in 2001 to block enforcement of the ban. The Dayton-based doctor argued the ban is unconstitutional because the procedure may be the safest method of abortion in some cases, even if the mother's health is not in jeopardy.

Haskell's attorney, Al Gerhardstein, said the failed attempt to overturn the ban was worthwhile because the Appeals Court clarified confusing passages of the Ohio law.

Most importantly, he said, the court established that the procedure is permitted if it is the safest method of abortion available, not just if the mother's life is in danger.

The procedure is called partial-birth abortion because it involves pulling the fetus partly out of the uterus feet first. The skull is then punctured and collapsed, and the brain is suctioned out.

Ohio's ban is the second approved by the state legislature since 1997. The first was ruled unconstitutional because it did not include an exception if the mother's health was in danger.

E-mail dhorn@enquirer.com




TOP STORIES
Higher gasoline tax kicks in today
Pair of homers just divine for nun
Hiker's fall a lesson in gorge survival
Briefing leaves Maupins with hope, but no news

IN THE TRISTATE
'Partial birth' ban in effect
Health groups announce changes
Yates fast to jump on board for gambling
Tests find more lead in yards
GE donations make impact for organizations and people
Critical eyes on health levies
Go 4th: fun, fireworks
Liberty's new head a resident since 1997
Ex-deputy found guilty in drug case
Children's study: Obese kids at risk
Ohio epicenter of anti-Bush group's national offensive
Ex-treasurer will repay funds, says her attorney
More money for Lakota
Union Twp. trustee's death leaves board to fill vacancy
Public safety briefs
News briefs
Neighbors briefs

ENQUIRER COLUMNISTS
Bronson: Drake Center doesn't need to go negative
Young People's Theatre hopping

LIVES REMEMBERED
Alvin L. Schulte owned N.Ky. drugstores
Arthur Wiedenbein, 57, trustee, 'visionary'

KENTUCKY STORIES
Williamstown may get 'wet'
Bohman 'likely' to run for board of education
Kentucky news briefs
Judge approves Fletcher's plan
Fireworks fizzle, but ballpark beer $1
Multi-vehicle crash kills trucker, closes I-71
Independence gets life squads
Kenton joins Scholars initiative