No Place for Compromise

President Clinton has indicated he will veto the bill passed by the Senate Tuesday that would ban a late-term abortion procedure, as he did similar legislation last year. But Clinton, although he has been a steady supporter of women’s right to choose, is known for his pursuit of common ground on controversial issues, no matter how tiny the plot or unstable the terrain.

Moreover, the president’s embracing last week of an alternative restriction on late-term abortions--since defeated--raises questions about his intentions. For this reason it is worth reminding Clinton about what the newly passed abortion bill would do and not do.

The Senate bill, similar to that which the House passed in March, would restrict only one procedure, “intact dilation and extraction,” allowing it only when a woman’s life was in immediate danger from a continued pregnancy. Yet most often, it is hope for a woman’s future fertility rather than fear for her life that leads a doctor to choose the procedure.

Doctors who have performed the dilation and extraction believe that it offers the best chance for women hoping to eventually bear children. The association representing gynecologists opposes the late-term restriction, despite the surprising acquiescence of the American Medical Assn. to this legislation. The AMA might gain politically with anti-abortion forces on this issue, but it loses by eroding the right of doctors to use what they believe to be the best treatment for a patient.

The restriction has also gained support from some lawmakers desperate to defuse the heat and division that the abortion issue generates. Clinton’s interest in the unsuccessful compromise measure clearly sprang from the same impulse to seek an area of agreement. But enactment of the bill would not quell the shrill voices demanding far stricter limits, including an end to all legal abortions.

The bill passed Tuesday would ban most uses of the dilation and extraction procedure at any point in a pregnancy. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states cannot regulate abortions before fetal viability.

Last year, Clinton vetoed a similar bill in the presence of three women who had the procedure to end pregnancies gone tragically awry. This year, he might reflect on the anguish these women shared and the measure of relief--and hope--they were able to gain.