(3 of 3)
As always on abortion, victory will go to the side that has the edge in framing the debate. Says Reed: "Anytime we can talk about the child, we win. Anytime we get off the child and start talking about technical issues or constitutional issues, we lose." It was with that in mind that Smith trundled his charts onto the Senate floor to describe the abortion method that, though rare, is exceedingly gruesome. Before the doctor kills the fetus, the trunk of the body has already been extracted from the birth canal. "The difference between the partial-birth abortion procedure and homicide is a mere three inches," said Charles Canady, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee that held hearings on the subject. Abortion-rights advocates insist the method should remain an option for women in the later stages of pregnancy, often because the fetus is deformed and has no chance of survival. Tammy Watts, 30, a California woman who underwent the procedure earlier this year, tearfully told the eight male Republicans who sit on Canady's subcommittee, "Until you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't pretend to know what this is like for me." The subcommittee voted last week to ban that type of abortion.
Such incremental steps do not please everyone in the antiabortion movement. The more restive among them point out that none of these moves is likely to make much of a dent in the 1.5 million abortions that occur annually in this country. But Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest anti-abortion group, insists that even small victories are worthwhile. "We are out not just to make a statement but to make a difference," he said. Not surprisingly, Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League sees these relatively small steps differently. She calls them "the cobblestones on the way to the back alleys."