参议院维持总统对堕胎方法禁令的否决。

Reproductive freedom news Pub Date : 1996-10-04
{"title":"参议院维持总统对堕胎方法禁令的否决。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On September 19, the House of Representatives voted 285-137 to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, known as \"The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.\" One week later, the Senate upheld the veto of the bill, with 41 members voting to sustain the veto and 57 to override it. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting in each house would have been required to overturn the veto. Had the vote succeeded, it would have marked an unprecedented step by Congress to interfere with a medical procedure. The final version of the bill, which was approved by the House in March of this year and the Senate in December 1995, sought to ban an abortion method, technically termed \"intact dilation and evacuation\" or \"dilation and extraction\" (D&X), primarily used later in pregnancies in cases in which a woman's life or health is threatened, including cases of severe fetal anomaly (see RFN V/7, IV/22). The measure's vague description of the procedure to be outlawed could have also applied to the most common method of second-trimester abortions. A very limited exception in the bill would have permitted the procedure if a woman's life were \"endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury,\" so long as no other surgical procedure could save her; an alternative method would have been required regardless of its impact on the woman's health. Physicians violating the ban would have faced fines and imprisonment for up to two years and would have been liable to suits by women's husbands and the parents of young women needing these procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":85396,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive freedom news","volume":"5 16","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Senate sustains president's veto of abortion method ban.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>On September 19, the House of Representatives voted 285-137 to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, known as \\\"The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.\\\" One week later, the Senate upheld the veto of the bill, with 41 members voting to sustain the veto and 57 to override it. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting in each house would have been required to overturn the veto. Had the vote succeeded, it would have marked an unprecedented step by Congress to interfere with a medical procedure. The final version of the bill, which was approved by the House in March of this year and the Senate in December 1995, sought to ban an abortion method, technically termed \\\"intact dilation and evacuation\\\" or \\\"dilation and extraction\\\" (D&X), primarily used later in pregnancies in cases in which a woman's life or health is threatened, including cases of severe fetal anomaly (see RFN V/7, IV/22). The measure's vague description of the procedure to be outlawed could have also applied to the most common method of second-trimester abortions. A very limited exception in the bill would have permitted the procedure if a woman's life were \\\"endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury,\\\" so long as no other surgical procedure could save her; an alternative method would have been required regardless of its impact on the woman's health. Physicians violating the ban would have faced fines and imprisonment for up to two years and would have been liable to suits by women's husbands and the parents of young women needing these procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":85396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive freedom news\",\"volume\":\"5 16\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive freedom news\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive freedom news","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

9月19日,众议院以285票对137票推翻了克林顿总统对H.R. 1833的否决,该法案被称为“部分分娩堕胎禁令法案”。一周后,参议院维持了对该法案的否决,41名议员投票维持否决,57名议员投票推翻否决。要推翻这一否决,必须获得参众两院三分之二的多数票。如果投票成功,这将标志着国会在干预医疗程序方面迈出了前所未有的一步。众议院于今年3月和参议院于1995年12月批准了该法案的最终版本,其中试图禁止一种堕胎方法,技术上称为"完整扩张和排出"或"扩张和取出" (D&X),主要用于怀孕后期妇女的生命或健康受到威胁的情况,包括严重胎儿异常的情况(见RFN V/7, IV/22)。该法案对堕胎程序的模糊描述可能也适用于最常见的中期妊娠流产方法。该法案中有一个非常有限的例外,如果一名妇女的生命“受到身体紊乱、疾病或伤害的威胁”,只要没有其他外科手术可以挽救她,就允许进行手术;无论其对妇女健康的影响如何,都需要一种替代方法。违反禁令的医生将面临罚款和最高两年的监禁,并可能受到需要这些手术的年轻女性的丈夫和父母的起诉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Senate sustains president's veto of abortion method ban.

On September 19, the House of Representatives voted 285-137 to override President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, known as "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act." One week later, the Senate upheld the veto of the bill, with 41 members voting to sustain the veto and 57 to override it. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting in each house would have been required to overturn the veto. Had the vote succeeded, it would have marked an unprecedented step by Congress to interfere with a medical procedure. The final version of the bill, which was approved by the House in March of this year and the Senate in December 1995, sought to ban an abortion method, technically termed "intact dilation and evacuation" or "dilation and extraction" (D&X), primarily used later in pregnancies in cases in which a woman's life or health is threatened, including cases of severe fetal anomaly (see RFN V/7, IV/22). The measure's vague description of the procedure to be outlawed could have also applied to the most common method of second-trimester abortions. A very limited exception in the bill would have permitted the procedure if a woman's life were "endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury," so long as no other surgical procedure could save her; an alternative method would have been required regardless of its impact on the woman's health. Physicians violating the ban would have faced fines and imprisonment for up to two years and would have been liable to suits by women's husbands and the parents of young women needing these procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信