Do you want to ban a specific abortion procedure to be defined in law, except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger?

You know the endlessly described procedure called partial birth abortion must be wrong except under highly limited circumstances. You know Question 1 claims to stop it. And if that is all you know about this ballot question, you will vote in favor of it. But look further and you will discover the ban itself means less to advocates than the agenda behind it.

Question 1 is confusing because its supporters tell voters that this horrible procedure must be banned without explaining how Maine might stop something that rarely, if ever, occurs. Between 1982 and 1998 in Maine, there have been a total of two late-term intact dilation and extractions — the medical procedure sometimes referred to as partial birth abortion. And because Question 1 makes an exception to protect the life of the mother, no one can say for sure that the ballot question would have halted either of those two.

It would, however, interfere with the relationship between a woman and her doctor by removing the woman’s health as a consideration in whether to have an abortion. This means, for instance, that a woman suffering from cancer and needing radiation treatment would not qualify, nor would a woman afflicted by stroke or gestational diabetes. Health issues that could permanently harm or even eventually kill a woman would not be allowed for consideration.

Pro-life advocates say the health exception is so broad that it would permit this type of abortion for almost any reason. But this is emphatically disputed by experience, where extremely low numbers of D&E abortions in every state year after year, decade after decade, show that this problem does not and never has existed.

The lack of the health exception, however, has been a prime reason for the courts to strike down similar or identical laws in 19 other states — virtually everywhere they have been challenged. And that, ultimately, is what is so vexing about Question 1. Its advocates already know that the absence of the health exception, the undue burden the proposal places on a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and the intentionally vague phrase “partial birth abortion” do not pass constitutional muster.

Maine’s question repeats the failed laws of other states by not being limited to third-trimester pregnancies but to any pregnancy; it doesn’t refer to a “viable” fetus but to a “living” one — meaning that the law could apply from the moment of conception. And while the American Medical Association provides clear definitions of medically recognized abortion procedures, the Maine law ignores them, instead employing the phrase designed to produce the greatest shock.

So why would pro-life advocates take the effort to raise money, collect signatures and campaign for a proposal that will not reduce abortion and has been shown, through similar legislation, to be unconstitutional? Because their deceptive campaign keeps an emotionally charged issue before the public, rallies their membership and, if successful, adds one more state to the list of those favoring a constitutional amendment restricting abortion rights.

Whatever their opinion of abortion, voters should reject any measure this scheming and legally suspect. If the advocates are sincere, they can return with a narrowly defined, legally supported proposal that actually would do what they pretend this one does. Then Maine could have an honest debate.