Bob Inglis

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the most embarrassing night that I have ever spent in this Congress, to realize that we came here to change things and we are not. We are participating in the big old trough that has characterized this place in the past, and it is a terrible embarrassment to be part of the new majority and to stand here and have to support this amendment that would take care of that trough that we are seeing. Mr. Chairman, there are 31 States who will be cheated as a result of this bill and the demonstration projects in it. Not an opinion; it is a mathematical fact. If a Member is from South Carolina and votes for this bill, they are cheating the State of South Carolina. So it is for 30 other States. Unless Members happen to have the big dig going on in their State or are from Pennsylvania, they are being cheated in this bill. Demonstration projects cheat their State, and in return they are getting a press release. So they get a press release and their State gets cheated. That is a lousy deal for their State and it is a lousy deal for America. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and fix this lousy bill.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act of 1998. American small businesses are under assault from excessive taxation, regulation and litigation. Particularly frustrating to many entrepreneurs is the fact that the current legal system makes them liable for accidents they do not cause and are powerless to prevent. In the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported common sense reform of our legal system. Today, however, because a comprehensive reform package was not enacted, it is vitally important that we stand up for small businesses facing a barrage of frivolous lawsuits. In the absence of a comprehensive package, we can still achieve much needed reform by advancing legislation that will offer targeted and incremental reform, as we did in 1997 by enacting the Volunteer Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can build on the momentum we started with the Volunteer Protection Act and provide similar protections to small businesses. The Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act of 1998 is simple and straightforward. It will offer three important protections to small businesses with 50 or fewer employees: Protects small businesses by allowing the imposition of punitive damages in any civil action only if the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct carried out by the defendant through willful, misconduct or with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the right or safety of others was the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject of the action; protects small businesses by limiting punitive damages to the lesser of either two times the total amount of economic and non-economic losses or $250,000; and protects small businesses by holding them liable in an amount that is proportionate to the degree of harm for which they are responsible. A broad and bi-partisan consensus exists on the need to protect America's small businesses from abusive litigation. This legislation is supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association, National Small Business United and the National Federation of Independent Business. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to give this measure swift and favorable consideration. National Restaurant Association, Washington, DC, February 10, 1998. Hon. Bob Inglis, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Inglis: The National Restaurant Association--the leading representative for the nation's restaurant industry which employs more than nine million Americans--strongly applauds your effort to protect small businesses from litigation excesses. Many small businesses, particularly restaurants, have become vulnerable to excessive litigation in recent years. Indeed, our members are all too familiar with the rising costs of liability insurance and with the reality that a single frivolous lawsuit can be enough to drive a restaurant out of business. We strongly support the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act of 1997 and believe it will go a long way toward curbing lawsuit abuse. Because of the fear of unlimited punitive damages when faced with a claim, many small business owners settle out of court for significant award amounts, even if the plaintiff's claim is frivolous and unwarranted. Plaintiffs' attorneys take advantage of a small business owner's fear, pursuing claims against businesses that they know will have ``settlement value.'' The Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act limits the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded against a small business. In any civil action against a small business, punitive damages may not exceed the lesser of two times the amount awarded to the claimant for economic and noneconomic losses, or $250,000. Putting a cap on the amount of punitive damages would help to reduce frivolous suits and would enable businesses to obtain more equitable settlements and avoid costly and unnecessary legal fees. In addition to limiting punitive damages, we are pleased that your legislation includes a provision to limit several liability for noneconomic damages. Under joint and several liability, small business owners are often dragged into lawsuits with which they had little, or nothing, to do. The Inglis Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act takes an important first step by limiting the liability for noneconomic loss to the proportion of the small business' responsibility. The limitation on several liability would apply in any civil action against a small business. Representative Inglis, we appreciate your continued commitment to small business and to legal reform. We look forward to working with you to pass the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act. Sincerely, Elaine Z. Graham, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Membership. Christina M. Howard, Senior Legislative Representative.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The previous speaker said something about accountability and how we must have accountability in this matter. Really, accountability in this context, I think, more equates to control. On this side what we are talking about is choice, which equates to freedom. And that is the difference in this debate. The difference is whether control is going to remain with a bureaucracy, whether it is in Washington or in a county back home. The question is who controls education: Is it a bureaucracy, an education bureaucracy, or is it parents? So accountability on this side really equates into control. Choice on this side equates into freedom. But there is something that comes with this freedom. The freedom we are after on this side is the opportunity for parents to choose where to send their kids to school. That is our ultimate objective, or at least my ultimate objective: to allow every parent in America to choose where to send their child to school among all options available to them. Now, I realize that the education establishment does not like that, because they do not want to give up that control. But consider what they are after: The education folks are always trying to create little programs at the Department of Education that are supposedly going to save the day, but we all know they will fall short. I think we are all coming to the conclusion, or I hope we are, that really the only way to educate kids is for parents to be involved. And the way for parents to be involved is to vest them with decisionmaking. Do not tell them by some formula worked out or map worked out in some bureaucrat's office somewhere where they are going to send their kids to school. Give them choice. Give them the opportunity to go to, say, Poly Williams School, where they have to sign a contract in order to have their kids there, and then what we will have is parental involvement because they are exercising their free choice. They are buying into the school. They are participating in Johnny's education, and Johnny is going to get educated that way. That is the change we need to bring, and I wholeheartedly support this small step toward that.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois in a colloquy, if I may. I would like first to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his fine work on this usually contentious piece of legislation. I know he and his staff have worked long hours to craft this piece of legislation, and I appreciate all of his hard work and dedication. I want to engage the gentleman in a colloquy regarding the Centers for Disease Control AIDS prevention funds. Let me first say that I believe we should all have compassion for the victims of AIDS. I support continued funding for AIDS treatment prevention and care. However, it seems to me that the Federal AIDS education campaign has emphasized condoms first and treated abstinence as a largely unrealistic goal, even though medical experts agree that it is the most medically sound response. I believe the focus should be changed to personal responsibility on the part of those infected. I am specifically concerned about the viability of groups such as PFOX, the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays. PFOX is a national organization that reaches out to men and women who want to leave the gay life-style. PFOX's ultimate message is that homosexuals have options. No one has to be gay and enter its subculture, instead, they can be heterosexual or live a life of abstinence. My question relates to the eligibility for CDC prevention funds. Are there any restrictions in this bill that would prevent those funds from being allocated to groups or organizations such as PFOX that advocate abstinence as a means of AIDS prevention?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, second, would it be permissible for me to enter into this record an encouragement of the Centers for Disease Control to consider allocating funds to groups, such as PFOX, that promote abstinence as a means to prevent the spread of AIDS?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2015, the bill just passed.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 911) to encourage the States to enact legislation to grant immunity from personal civil liability, under certain circumstances, to volunteers working on behalf of nonprofit organizations and governmental entities, as amended.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the Republican Conference.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/ 4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. My distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, has worked on this bill for some time now, and I hope that we will fulfill his hard work today in this House. Our Nation has an extensive tradition of volunteering. It is almost impossible to be an American and not have had contact with one of the hundreds of public service groups. The circumstances surrounding that volunteer work are as pleasant as a Girl Scout camping trip or as tragic added flood relief. Now our tradition is in danger like never before. One of the reasons is frivolous lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, across the country the fear of getting sued keeps people from volunteering. In a recent Gallup survey one in six volunteers reported withholding their services for fear of being sued. About 1 in 10 nonprofit groups report the resignation of a volunteer over the threat of liability. I have seen this problem firsthand. In my district, for example, a group called Christmas in April, associated with a national organization, rehabilitates houses, creating all kinds of possibilities for frivolous lawsuits. Fear of getting sued is omnipresent and getting worse all the time. I can illustrate with an example. Assume a volunteer is working on one of those houses and his or her hammer head falls off and hits the homeowner's parked car. Should the homeowner be able to sue the volunteer? Reasonable people, I believe, would say no. The volunteer did not intend to hit the car and was not negligent in losing the hammer. If one is being a good Samaritan and there is an accident that is not one's fault, one should not get sued. That is the commonsense intent of this bill and here is how it would protect volunteers. First, the bill provides that volunteers will not be liable for harm caused by their acts, as long as they are acting in good faith. To have this protection, the volunteers must act within the scope of their responsibilities in the organization and must not cause harm by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct. Second, the bill offers no protection for individuals who commit hate crimes, violent crimes, section crimes, or who violate the civil rights of others. The bill also does not apply when defendants were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Third, the bill allows States to opt out if they choose not to adhere to these standards. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a very commonsense standard for protecting volunteers. It makes sense that volunteer groups should use their scarce resources to do their work of mercy rather than use them to defend against frivolous lawsuits. By passing the Volunteer Protection Act, we will promote voluntarism by removing the risk of getting sued for acts of kindness. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who has done such fine work on this bill for a number of years and whose work we are now hopefully going to fulfill today.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the committee.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], with appreciation for her support of this bill.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct. It is my understanding that any group which is responsible for conduct covered by subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act would be excluded from the protection of the bill. The language was inserted to clarify that nonprofit groups responsible for civil violations, which did not constitute a hate crime, were not subject to exclusion from the bill's coverage.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who has done excellent work on this bill.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the committee. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 543) to provide certain protections to volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am particularly happy to follow the two colleagues that have just spoken, because I think that it shows that this truly is an issue on which Republicans and Democrats can agree, and particularly it shows that even people like the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who is a pro-choice Member, see this procedure as on the other side of the acceptable line. I think it is very nice to follow both of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an article from the Sunday Record that talks about some of the facts of this procedure and some of the implications of it. I think it is very important that we speak the truth here and that we get to the bottom of this. Basically, what we are talking about is a procedure that I believe, and I hope most of our colleagues believe, should not be countenanced in a civilized society. It is something really that we cannot tolerate in a civilized society, and therefore something that I hope we can all vote, Republicans and Democrats and yes, even some pro-choice Members, can vote to ban today. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Inglis, SC, Sunday Record, Sept. 15, 1996] Review and Outlook: The Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion (By Ruth Padawer) Even by the highly emotional standards of the abortion debate, the rhetoric on so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions has been exceptionally intense. But while indignation has been abundant, facts have not. Pro-choice activists categorically insist that only 500 of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year in this country involve the partial-birth method, in which a live fetus is pulled partway into the birth canal before it is aborted. They also contend that the procedure is reserved for pregnancies gone tragically awry, when the mother's life or health is endangered, or when the fetus is so defective that it won't survive after birth anyway. The pro-choice claim has been passed on without question in several leading newspapers and by prominent commentators and politicians, including President Clinton. But interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year--three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say only a ``minuscule amount'' are for medical reasons. Within two weeks, Congress is expected to decide whether to criminalize the procedure. The vote must override Clinton's recent veto. In anticipation of that showdown, lobbyists from both camps have orchestrated aggressive campaigns long on rhetoric and short on accuracy. For their part, abortion foes have implied that the method is often used on healthy, full-term fetuses, an almost-born baby delivered whole. In the three years since they began their campaign against the procedure, they have distributed more than 9 million brochures graphically describing how doctors ``deliver'' the fetus except for its head, then puncture the back of the neck and aspirate brain tissue until the skull collapses and slips through the cervix--an image that prompted even pro-choice Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D- N.Y., to call it ``just too close to infanticide.'' But the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are not performed on almost-born babies. They occur in the middle of the second trimester, when the fetus is too young to survive outside the womb. The reason for the fervor over partial birth is plain: The bill marks the first time the House has ever voted to criminalize an abortion procedure since the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling. Both sides know an override could open the door to more severe abortion restrictions, a thought that comforts one side and horrifies the other. How often it's done No one keeps statistics on how many partial-birth abortions are done, but pro-choice advocates have argued that intact ``dilation and evacuation''--a common name for the method, for which no standard medical term exists--is very rare, ``an obstetrical non-entity,'' as one put it. And indeed, less than 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks gestation, the earliest point at which this method can be used, according to estimates by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of New York, a respected source of data on reproductive health. The National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers and the source of data and case histories for this pro-choice fight, estimates that the number of intact cases in the second and third trimesters is about 500 nationwide. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League says ``450 to 600'' are done annually. But those estimates are belied by reports from abortion providers who use the method. Doctors at Metropolitan Medical in Englewood estimate that their clinic alone performs 3,000 abortions a year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks, of which at least half are by intact dilation and evacuation. They are the only physicians in the state authorized to perform abortions that late, according to the state Board of Medical Examiners, which governs physicians' practice. The physicians' estimates jibe with state figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control, which collects data on the number of abortions performed. ``I always try an intact D&E first,'' said a Metropolitan Medical gynecologist, who, like every other provider interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. If the fetus isn't breech, or if the cervix isn't dilated enough, providers switch to traditional, or ``classic,'' D&E--in utero dismemberment. Another metropolitan area doctor who works outside New Jersey said he does about 260 post-20-week abortions a year, of which half are by intact D&E. The doctor, who is also a professor at two prestigious teaching hospitals, said he has been teaching intact D&E since 1981, and he said he knows of two former students on Long Island and two in New York City who use the procedure. ``I do an intact D&E whenever I can, because it's far safer,'' he said. The National Abortion Federation said 40 of its 300 member clinics perform abortions as late as 26 weeks, and although no one knows how many of them rely on intact D&E, the number performed nationwide is clearly more than the 500 estimated by pro-choice groups like the federation. The federation's executive director, Vicki Saporta, said the group drew its 500-abortion estimate from the two doctors best known for using intact D&E, Dr. Martin Haskell in Ohio, who Saporta said does about 125 a year, and Dr. James McMahon in California, who did about 375 annually and has since died. Saporta said the federation has heard of more and more doctors using intact D&E, but never revised its estimate, figuring those doctors just picked up the slack following McMahon's death. ``We've made umpteen phone calls [to find intact D&E practitioners]'', said Saporta, who said she was surprised by The Record's findings. ``We've been looking for spokespeople on this issue. . . . People do not want to come forward [to us] because they're concerned they'll become targets of violence and harassment.'' when it's done The pro-choice camp is not the only one promulgating misleading information. A key component of The National Right to Life Committee's campaign against the procedure is a widely distributed illustration of a well-formed fetus being aborted by the partial-birth method. The committee's literature calls the aborted fetuses ``babies'' and asserts that the partial-birth method has ``often been performed'' in the third trimester. The National Right to Life Committee and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have highlighted cases in which the procedure has been performed well into the third trimester, and overlaid that on instances in which women have had less-than-compelling reasons for abortion. In a full-page ad in the Washington Post in March, the bishops' conference illustrated the procedure and said women would use it for reasons as frivolous as ``hates being fat,'' ``can't afford a baby and a new car,'' and ``won't fit into prom dress.'' ``We were very concerned that if partial-birth abortion were allowed to continue, you could kill not just an unborn, but a mostly born. And that's not far from legitimizing actual infanticide,'' said Helen Alvare, the bishops' spokeswoman. Forty-one states restrict third-trimester abortions, and even states that don't--such as New Jersey--may have no physicians or hospitals willing to do them for any reason. Metropolitan Medical's staff won't do abortions after 24 weeks of gestation. ``The nurses would stage a war,'' said a provider there. ``The law is one thing. Real life is something else.'' In reality, only about 600--or 0.04 percent--of abortions of any type are performed after 26 weeks, according to the latest figures from Guttmacher. Physicians who use the procedure say the vast majority are done in the second trimester, prior to fetal viability, generally thought to be 24 weeks. Full term is 40 weeks. Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson denied that his group had focused on third-trimester abortions, adding, ``Even if our drawings did show a more developed baby, that would be defensible because 30-week fetuses have been aborted frequently by this method, and many of those were not flawed, even by an expansive definition.'' Why it's done Abortion rights advocates have consistently argued that intact D&Es are used under only the most compelling circumstances. In 1995, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America issued a press release asserting that the procedure ``is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' In February, the National Abortion Federation issued a release saying, ``This procedure is most often performed when women discover late in wanted pregnancies that they are carrying fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life.'' Clinton offered the same message when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in April, and surrounded himself with women who had wrenching testimony about why they needed abortions. One was an antiabortion marcher whose health was compromised by her 7-month-old fetus' neuromuscular disorder. The woman, Coreen Costello, wanted desperately to give birth naturally, even knowing her child would not survive. But because the fetus was paralyzed, her doctors told her a live vaginal delivery was impossible. Costello had two options, they said: abortion or a type of Caesarean section that might ruin her chances of ever having another child. She chose an intact D&E. But most intact D&E cases are not like Coreen Costello's. Although many third-trimester abortions are for heart- wrenching medical reasons, most intact D&E patients have their abortions in the middle of the second trimester. And unlike Coreen Costello, they have no medical reason for termination. ``We have an occasional amino abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,'' said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. ``Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers.'' The physician who teaches said: ``In my private practice, 90 to 95 percent are medically indicated. Three of them today are Trisomy-21 [Down syndrome] with heart disease, and in another, the mother has brain cancer and needs chemo. But in the population I see at the teaching hospitals, which is mostly a clinic population, many, many fewer are medically indicated.'' Even the Abortion Federation's two prominent providers of intact D&E have showed documents that publicly contradict the federation's claims. In a 1992 presentation at an Abortion Federation seminar, Haskell described intact D&E in detail and said he routinely used it on patients 20 to 24 weeks pregnant. Haskell went on to tell the American Medical News, the official paper of the American Medical Association, that 80 percent of those abortions were ``purely elective.'' The federation's other leading provider, Dr. McMahon, released a chart to the House Judiciary Committee listing ``depression'' as the most common maternal reason for his late-term non-elective abortions and listing ``cleft lip'' several times as the fetal indication. Saporta said 85 percent of McMahon's abortions were for severe medical reasons. Even using Saporta's figures, simple math shows 56 of McMahon's abortions and 100 of Haskell's each year were not associated with medical need. Thus, even if they were the only two doctors performing the procedure, more than 30 percent of their cases were not associated with health concerns. Asked about the disparity, Saporta said the pro-choice movement focused on the compelling cases because those were the majority of McMahon's practice, which was mostly third- trimester abortions. Besides, Saporta said, ``When the Catholic bishops and Right to Life debate us on TV and radio, they say a woman at 40 weeks can walk in and get an abortion even if she and the fetus are healthy.'' Saporta said that claim is not true. ``That has been their focus, and we've been playing defense ever since.'' where lobbying has left us Doctors who rely on the procedure say the way the debate has been framed obscures what they believe is the real issue. Banning the partial-birth method will not reduce the number of abortions performed. Instead, it will remove one of the safest options for mid-pregnancy termination. ``Look, abortion is abortion. Does it really matter if the fetus dies in utero or when half of it's already out?'' said one of the five doctors who regularly uses the method at Metropolitan Medical in Englewood. ``What matter is what's safest for the woman,'' and this procedure, he said, is safest for abortion patients 20 weeks pregnant or more. There is less risk of uterine perforation from sharp broken bones and destructive instruments, one reason the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has opposed the ban. Pro-choice activists have emphasized that nine of 10 abortions in the United States occur in the first trimester, and that these have nothing to do with the procedure abortion foes have drawn so much attention to. That's true, physicians say, but it ducks the broader issue. By highlighting the tragic Coreen Costellos, they say, pro- choice forces have obscured the fact that criminalizing intact D&E would jettison the safest abortion not only for women like Costello, but for the far more common patient: a woman 4\1/2\ to 5 months pregnant with a less compelling reason--but still a legal right--to abort. That strategy is no surprise, given Americans' queasiness about later-term abortions. Why reargue the morality of or the right to a second-trimester abortion when anguishing examples like Costello's can more compellingly make the case for intact D&E? To get around the bill, abortion providers say they could inject poison into the amniotic fluid or fetal heart to induce death in utero, but that adds another level of complication and risk to the pregnant woman. Or they could use induction--poisoning the fetus and then ``delivering'' it dead after 12 to 48 hours of painful labor. That method is clearly more dangerous, and if it doesn't work the patient must have a Caesarean section, major surgery with far more risks. Ironically, the most likely response to the ban is that doctors will return to classic D&Es, arguably a far more gruesome method than the one currently under fire. And, pro- choice advocates now wonder how safe from attack that is, now that abortion foes have America's attention. Congress is expected to call for the override vote this week or next, once again turning up the heat on Clinton, barely seven weeks from the election. Legislative observers from both camps predict that the vote in the House will be close. If the override succeeds--a two- thirds majority is required--the measure will be sent to the Senate, where an override is less likely, given that the initial bill passed by 54 to 44, well short of the 67 votes needed.