Introduction
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 1995, also known as H.R. 1833, was a controversial and contentious bill that proposed to ban a specific type of late-term abortion which involves the partial delivery of the fetus before it is aborted. It garnered large amounts of attention from various leaders, politicians, and citizens from the political, medical, and religious communities.
Conservative religious leaders and followers were among the most vocal supportors of the bill, believing that all abortions were morally incorrect and violated the sanctity of life. This sentiment was seen in articles, pamphlets, and newspapers across the country, depicting the ban as a necessary step to protect “innocent lives.” Such rhetoric can be seen throughout the pro-life movement, but the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act gave religious leaders a vehicle to promote their beliefs on abortion. The pro-life argument came most significantly from the Catholic Church. Even churches who tended to sway on the side of pro-choice came out with statements about H.R.1833, both in favor and against the ban. Religious women who previously had partial-birth abortions came out afterwards in favor of banning them as they believed it was against the sanctity of human life.
Despite the loud voices of religious protesters, pro-choice advocates--especially medical professionals--argued that such a ban interfered with a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. Futhermore, the ban potentially put womens’ lives at risk if the procedure were to be necessary in cases of emergencies. Medical professionals used the counterargument againist the ban that partial birth abortions was only used in rare circumstances to save a woman’s life or protect her health. Bill Clinton’s veto of the ban also brought into question how politics and religion interfere with female automony.
Politicians also weighed in on the issue. Some saw it as a matter of moral principle or a way to appeal to their constituents. Since there was such a strong debate on both sides, it made political arguments more complicated. Just as religious officials let politics seep into their arguments, political officials let religion seep into their decision-making processes.
The religious and medical factors of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act seeped its way into politics, as politicians on both sides of the issue saw it as a way to appeal to their voters and signal their political stances. Supporters of the ban argued that it was a matter of moral principle, arguing that abortion was wrong often by using religious implications. While opponents of the ban saw the bill as an attack on women's reproductive rights. Diagrams from the National Right to Life organization illustrated the partial birth abortion procedure targeted by the ban and emphasized its gruesome nature as a way to convince people againist the procedure. Medical professionals countered this argument with facts that the procedure was only used in rare circumstances and was often the safest option for the mother's health.
This bill was introduced in the context of a broader political and cultural debate over abortion and reproductive rights in the United States. At the heart of this debate were questions of religion, politics, and medicine, as different groups and individuals brought their own perspectives and arguments to bear on the issue. H.R. 1833 was a highly debated issue that touched on a range of political, religious, and medical concerns. Its implications were far-reaching and continue to be debated today, with both sides of the issue presenting evidence to support their positions. Our project analyzes how the intersections of religion, politics, and medicine came to fruition and how this amalgamation of factors impacted the social and political world, both at the time of the bill and to this day.