The move to ban partial-birth abortion in the United States is back on track after being stalled for months in the Senate. Although the bill passed the full Senate by a two-to-one margin nearly six months ago, differences between the Senate and House versions required a conference committee to work out the differences, but the committee failed to convene.

According to an unnamed aide, Senate Democrats dragged their heels, set up roadblocks and prevented conferees on their side from being appointed to the Senate Conference Committee. The logjam recently ended when language crafted by Sen. Tom Harkin, (D-IA) supporting Roe v. Wade was successfully attached to the bill by a unanimous vote of 93-0. However, observers say this was not the Senate’s endorsement of abortion but rather a procedural move OK’d by its pro-life contingent who saw this as the only way they could move the bill forward.

"This was a way to get it to conference so we can get the result we're looking for," said Sen. Trent Lott, (R-MS). Other supporters of the ban, including Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) agree and are confident the Roe language will be removed before the bill is finalized. "You've got both the House and the president opposed to [Roe language]," Brownback said. "We will get this ban done this year."

The House passed its version of the bill by a margin of 282-139 last June with all six of Kentucky’s Congresspersons being co-sponsors. After conference committee adjustments, the House version passed 281-142 on October 2. The Senate passed its original version on March 13, by a 64-33 vote and is expected to vote on final passage later this month.

Thirty-one states, including Kentucky have criminalized partial-birth abortion--an unrecognized medical procedure which involves partially delivering an unborn baby, except for the head, and blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal.

Congress successfully passed two bills banning partial-birth abortions since 1995, only to have them vetoed by former President Bill Clinton. President Bush has promised to sign such legislation that may reach his desk before the end of October.

The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the idea that parents of a physically disabled child could sue doctors on grounds of "wrongful life"--the dubious doctrine where deformed or imperfect babies constitute an injury to parents who have missed an "opportunity" to abort.

The cases involved two families who brought suit after their children were born with severe physical defects. In both cases, the women's doctors allegedly misinterpreted ultrasound readings and failed to detect any birth defects in time for them to abort.

In his August 21 opinion, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said, "[t]he plaintiffs contend injury was in their taking an unwanted pregnancy to term. We are unwilling to equate the loss of an abortion opportunity resulting in a genetically or congenitally impaired human life ... with a cognizable legal injury." Justices Martin Johnstone, William Cooper, and William Graves joined in the opinion.

Two judges harshly criticized the notion of "wrongful life" in a concurring opinion. Justice Donald Wintersheimer and William Graves said "the argument that there is a kind of `quality of life' ethic is without any merit. ... If logically extended, it could produce a culture that condones the extermination of the weak by the strong or the more powerful. The Nazi regime under Hitler is a not too distant reminder of this kind of eugenic approach."

Michael Janocik of Kentucky Right to Life Association was pleased with the decision. "The [idea of "wrongful life"] is about as blatant an assault on the sanctity of human life as one could imagine, Janocik said. "Like partial birth abortion, human cloning, and assisted suicide, ‘wrongful life’ is another horrific signpost on the journey we began 30 years ago. We are grateful that the Kentucky Supreme Court has closed this road and exposed it for what it is – crass eugenics."