LANSING—Michigan has witnessed a long, hard-fought battle over the controversial procedure known as “partial-birth abortion.”

A 2003 federal law makes it illegal for physicians to knowingly perform a partial-birth abortion, a rare procedure in which a fetus is partially delivered, then killed.

The next year, Michigan drew national attention by passing a bill to limit partial-birth abortions by declaring birth as the point in which any part of a baby is outside the mother’s body.

Critics of such a ban argued that it would violate women’s reproductive rights and improperly intrude into medical decisions.

The bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

But more than 450,000 signatures on a “people’s override petition” reversed Granhom’s veto, and later that year the bill became law.

Earlier this year, however, things changed for Michigan.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal law passed in 2003 that banned partial-birth abortions.

But less than two months later, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Michigan law is unconstitutional, saying it “fails to comply with the explicit limitations that the Supreme Court has established for statutes regulating abortion.”

The court noted that other states like Ohio have complied with the federal law and therefore, their partial-birth abortion laws are valid. It also said that if Michigan’s law had been worded like Ohio’s, it would have been upheld.

So with a federal ban on partial-birth abortions still in place but Michigan’s own law tossed out, pro-life advocates find themselves at a crossroads—pleased with the ruling of the Supreme Court, but disappointed that no state ban is in place.

Now a new bill by Sen. Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township, mirrors the wording of the federal law.

“My bill uses the federal language that passed judicial muster by the U.S. Supreme Court. so the 6th Circuit court won’t have any questions about it,” Brown said. “They can’t override something that’s harmonious with a ruling of the Supreme Court.”

Brown said that while he’s pleased with the federal law, it’s important for Michigan to have its own ban.

“Even though we have an overriding federal law in place, we feel it would be appropriate to go back and restore a Michigan law that will pass judicial muster,” he said. “That way, we’ll have a more responsive state law in place and not simply be reliant on federal prosecution.”

Sarah Scranton, executive director for the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan, said she’s “not surprised to see a bill like this.”

“They try this session after session—this is just another attempt by the Legislature to tell doctors how to do their job,” Scranton said.

“The bill is really saying that politicians, not doctors or women, should be making medical decisions—which is absolutely ridiculous,” she said.

Scranton said Brown’s bill is “filled with anti-choice rhetoric and false information. “The Legislature shouldn’t be making medical decisions for people,” she said. “It’s not what their job is.”

Dave Fox, public relations director for the Michigan State Medical Society, said the association, which represents physicians, has no comment on the bill because “it hasn’t thoroughly reviewed it.”

But Fox did say that as a rule, the society objects to any legislation that tells doctors how to do their job.

“Our opposition before (to the state ban) is that in general, we’re opposed to any legislation that regulates the practice of medicine,” Fox said. “It doesn’t depend on the procedure, it depends more on someone trying to legislate what constitutes the practice of medicine.

“In this case, it’d be up to the women and her doctor to make that decision,” he said.

But Ed Rivet, legislative director for Michigan Right-To-Life, asserted that “partial-birth abortions are not a legitimate practice of medicine.

“It’s a three-day procedure that’s usually not related to the mother’s health,” Rivet said. “It’s designed for the convenience of abortionists to do very late-term abortionists.”

Rivet also disagreed with Scranton’s assertion that lawmakers have no right to regulate the practice of medicine.

“There are always instances where it’s appropriate for the law to step in, whether it’s medicine or any other kind of profession,” he said. “The loose parameters of Roe v. Wade have allowed abortionists, not everyday doctors, to expand abortion into infanticide.

“That’s where the law should respond.”

There were 25,636 abortions in Michigan in 2006, a 47.8 percent drop from 1987, when Michigan recorded its highest total of abortions ever. Rivet said last year, 125 were performed after 21 weeks of gestation, but said it’s tough to know how many of those were partial-birth abortions.

Brown said opposition to partial-birth abortions is usually non-partisan.

“The outrage over this issue of partial-birth abortion crosses all party lines,” Brown said. “There’s a point at which people in America can come together and say with certainly that this egregious procedure is wrong.”

Sen. John Gleason, D-Flushing, said that because many House Democrats are against the procedure, the bill shouldn’t have any trouble passing the Legislature.

“It will be easy in the Senate because the Republicans are in charge,” he said. “But there are pro-life Democrats in the House, too. Andy Dillon, the speaker, is pro-life and he carries a lot of weight in the House.

“The bill will get to the governor, but I don’t know what she’ll do with it. I couldn’t make that call,” Gleason said.

Scranton said Michigan isn’t the first state to emulate the federal ban. “We’ve seen these bills pop up in state after state,” she said. “Just as in the Supreme Court ruling, this bill shows utter disregard for women’s health and safety.”

The bill is before the Senate Committee on Health Policy.