Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, November 19, 1993 TAG: 9311190154
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
After an emotional debate that split congressional anti-abortion-rights forces, the House passed the bill by voice vote.
Tuesday, the Senate approved a slightly weaker version on a 69-30 vote. Supporters said they hoped a conference committee could quickly reconcile the differences between the two pieces of legislation so a final bill could be sent to President Clinton for his signature before Congress adjourns next week. Otherwise, final action will be delayed until lawmakers return in January.
As in the Senate, alarm over a rising wave of violence against abortion clinics, coupled with revulsion over the slaying of a Florida abortion clinic physician last March, propelled the bill to passage.
Anti-abortion-rights forces in Congress were divided over the issue, which was seen by many as more a debate about crime than about abortion.
"This bill is good for those who are pro-life and good for those who are pro-choice. This bill is bad only for those who seek to take the law into their own hands," said Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the legislation's chief sponsor.
While a number of anti-abortion-rights lawmakers agreed with that assessment, others argued that the bill was unfair to anti-abortion-rights activists because it singled out the movement's members for criminal penalties.
They also contended that the legislation drew no distinction between protesters who block access to abortion clinics and extremists who commit violent acts.
The House bill would make it a federal crime to obstruct access to an abortion clinic and impose penalties of as much as $100,000 and a year's imprisonment for the first offense.
Repeat offenders would be subject to prison terms of as long as three years. Anyone committing acts of violence resulting in injury or death would face prison terms ranging from 10 years to life.
The Senate version would impose weaker penalties for nonviolent, first-time offenders.
The Virginia House delegation voted along party lines, with all the Democrats favoring the bill and all Republicans voting against it.
"This bill totally trashes the idea that the penalty should fit the crime" and is "unconsciousably harsh," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who led an unsuccessful effort to delete the penalties as they would apply to protesters who block clinics without resorting to violence.
Supporters of the bill argued, however, that the courts were unlikely to treat peaceful protesters as harshly as a violent offenders.
They also noted that the bill does not prohibit peaceful protests outside abortion clinics and would apply only to those trying to deny access.
"The right to free speech does not include the right to threaten, harm or deny anyone his or her right to enter a clinic," said Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, D-Pa.
Noting that Congress last year passed a law aimed at discouraging animal rights activists from vandalizing laboratories, Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., said: "If you did it for bunny rabbits, can't you give women at least equal rights?"
by CNB