Last Thursday, the House voted on a bill to ban a type of late-term abortion called partial-birth abortion.

President Bush has promised to sign the bill into law, a bill that Clinton vetoed twice because of its loosely defined, non-medical terms. It will be voted on in the Senate soon, and if passed, it could be the first federal law since the infamous Roe vs. Wade case in 1973 to restrict a specific abortion procedure, according to an article on CNN.com.

Though I am not opposed to the concept, the bill could be ahead of itself, rendering it ineffective. Thirty states already have their own versions of partial-birth abortion laws, and most lawmakers have successfully challenged or found loopholes in those laws. In 2000, a Nebraska case made it to Supreme Court, and it was ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the vagueness of the definitions of partial birth and medical practices prohibited.

This bill could be improved with a little specification and advice from other government policies, more specifically Spain’s, and a look at why women choose to have abortions in the first place. The 30-year old Roe vs. Wade needs a face-lift — a modernization, if you will.

First, “partial-birth abortion” is not even a medically accepted term, but is defined by the bill as, “a procedure in which the fetus is killed after the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation or any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.” Although it seems self-explanatory, people interpret things in different ways, especially in court cases they want to win. The words fetus, breech, fetal trunk, all could be expanded upon, and given in medically accepted language.

Next, the question of the mother’s health comes up. What if her health is in jeopardy? What if she is having complications, and could possibly die if the fetus is not aborted? It is under these conditions I believe partial birth abortions should be allowed. Women should be able to make consequence-free decisions on important matters such as their health and their life.

However, I think there should be more restrictions on the contexts in which abortions are performed. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade was a huge victory for women’s rights, giving them full right to make their own choices about their own bodies — but the facts speak for themselves.

The annual number of abortions from 1973 to 1990 more than doubled, from 744,600 to 1.6 million, according to the National Right to Life Web site (www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts). In 1997, there was an abortion performed every 24 seconds, and more babies died by means of abortion than Americans in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars combined. More than 43 million abortions have been performed since 1973.

Although abortion rates have leveled off since the late ’90s, this leads me to believe women are almost taking advantage of the fact that options are available to them. Nearly half the abortions performed have been to women who have had a previous abortion. When polled, 93 percent of women who had abortions cited social reasons such as relationship problems, immaturity, and financial instability as their reason for abortion, and only seven percent mentioned “hard” reasons such as the mother as baby’s health, and rape or incest.

So what can be done? One suggestion could be to take a lesson from Spain. According to the Abortion Law Reform Web site, www.alra.org.uk/europe, in Spain an abortion can only be performed under these circumstances:

* Up to 12 weeks after a woman is raped or victim of incest

* If there is grave risk of physical or mental health to the woman or baby

* Approval from two doctors, and parental consent if the woman is under 18 years old

This could potentially lessen the 93 percent of women who have abortions for social reasons, if there are more limiting factors. This may not be such a tough idea to swallow for Americans.

A June 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62 percent of Americans support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or when it threatens the life of the mother. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It is very similar to Spain’s policy. Spain performed six times fewer abortions than the United States last year.

This could be a very monumental bill if passed, and all options should be considered.