Pro-Lifers Hope to Override Governor Warner's Veto

By Michael F. Flach
HERALD Staff Writer
(From the issue of 4/11/02)

Virginia pro-life leaders are staging a last-minute effort to overturn Governor Mark Warner’s recent veto of legislation that would have banned partial birth abortions.

Warner claimed the legislation, which was sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall, lacked sufficient exceptions for women who encounter problems late in pregnancy. He also said partial-birth abortions would be necessary to protect the mother's health.

In his veto message, Warner said the ban should only apply after the viability of the unborn child.

"I join the vast majority of Virginians in deep disappointment at Gov. Mark Warner's inexplicable decision to veto a ban on medically induced infanticide," Marshall said. "The measure the governor had blocked won the overwhelming support of senators and members of the House of Delegates, reflecting the broad and deep support my bill enjoys among the people of the Commonwealth."

Marshall’s bill passed the Senate 26-12 and the House of Delegates 75-25. A two-thirds vote in both chambers is needed to override the governor’s veto.

Marshall is optimistic about achieving the necessary votes to override the veto when the General Assembly meets for a special session April 17. He encouraged Virginia’s pro-lifers to contact state delegates and senators to express their concerns about the governor’s veto.

"I will spare no effort in the coming days to uphold the humane common sense of the people of the Commonwealth and to urge my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike, to close ranks and override this veto," he said.

Representatives from the Arlington Diocese who voted against the bill (HB1154) included Kenneth Plum (36), Robert Hull (38), Vivian Watts (39), James Dillard (41), Kristen Amundson (44), Marian VanLandingham (45), James Almand (47), Robert Brink (48), Karen Darner (49), Harry Parrish (50) and James Scott (53).

Senators form the diocese who voted against the bill included Patricia Ticer (30), Mary Margaret Whipple (31), Janet Howell (32), Leslie Byrne (34), Richard Saslaw (35) and Linda Puller (36).

Marshall’s bill would have made partial-birth abortion a Class 4 felony. The procedure was deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the pregnant woman "only if it averted her death or avoided a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

An abortion practitioner who violated the ban would have faced up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.

The Virginia General Assembly passed a ban on partial-birth abortions four years ago, but legal challenges prevented it from going into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1999 declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because it was too "vague" and made no exception for the claim that an abortion would protect the mother's health.

Marshall said his bill differs from the Nebraska law struck down by the Supreme Court. "Nothing in the U. S. Constitution requires the Governor of Virginia to adopt the most extreme interpretation of that ruling's meaning," he said. "As a matter of either medicine or law, the governor's decision was unwarranted and, on the basis of his long-stated views on medical intervention to end a baby's life late in pregnancy, unexpected."

Marshall said Warner's veto message raises no new arguments against this protective measure for mothers and for infants who are but an inch away from drawing their first breath.

"My bill was drawn up in consultation with legal scholars who are convinced that nothing in the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence prevents this state or any other from protecting children who are in the process of being born," he said.

Marshall said the language for the health exception in his bill is drawn directly from Virginia's informed consent and parental notice laws, language that Marshall claims has withstood judicial scrutiny.

"My bill has been examined by the highest medical authorities in Virginia, who informed the legislature that there is no medical circumstance when the procedure barred by H.B. 1154 is needed to preserve maternal health," he said.

Copyright ©2002 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.