[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3558-H3559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MORE ON THE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, a great Democrat who came from my State,
perhaps one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Democratic Party
over the last 30 or 40 years, Hubert Humphrey, once said that if you
love your God, you must love his children.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the tragedy of the partial
birth abortion issue and what the President has done with his veto. I
rise to congratulate the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
because I think they have, in very strong words, expressed on behalf
not only of Catholics but I think of millions of Americans that have
conscience of both political parties the outrage of this grisly
procedure and the action of the President by vetoing it, keeping it
legal here in the United States.
This is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democrat issue. It
certainly is not just a Catholic issue. I think it is an issue about
our basic humanity and how we treat the most vulnerable among us.
I would like to read for the Record a letter from a gentleman in
Texas. For those who may be watching, I would be happy to make
available to them a copy of this letter as well as a letter from the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, because they are both
extremely powerful letters. I think all Americans should have an
opportunity to read them.
{time} 1745
I want to read this for the record, Mr. Speaker:
Hon. Bill Clinton.
Dear Mr. President: On Wednesday evening, when I learned
that you had vetoed the partial birth abortion bill, I felt
stunned and angry, but mostly I felt betrayed. Betrayal is a
strong word. However, President Clinton, this is the anguish
that I and many Democrats across the nation feel now.
As a dedicated Democrat, I believed Bill Clinton during the
primary campaign in Texas in 1992 and in the general election
as our nominee when you vowed to protect the rights of
individuals and to forge an era of the new Democrat, an era
that would avoid the extremism of either side.
I campaigned for that Bill Clinton and stood proudly in the
cold in Washington at your inauguration when you gave your
message of hope for those who have no voice. But Wednesday,
with your veto, you ignored the rights of the innocent little
children and literally sentenced them, thousands probably
before this madness is brought to an end, to their deaths.
Unlike the debate over abortion that has been ongoing for
decades, this procedure is clearly the brutal taking of a
human life. The right-to-choose position of the Democratic
Party has largely been driven by the belief that a fetus
cannot survive outside the mother's womb. But in this case,
medical evidence is clear that these babies could survive,
but are destroyed in the most vicious and inhumane way
possible. Our society demands that even dogs be destroyed in
a more humane fashion.
For what purpose, Mr. President, did you do this? To
satisfy a minority of extremists whose votes you would have
gotten anyway? And please, consider again your
rationalization that you acted to ``protect the safety of the
mother,'' when the bill permitted an exception if a doctor
deemed the procedure was necessary to save the mother's life.
You know full well that the bill would not have received the
support of the Council on Legislation of the American Medical
Society and 73 Democrats in the house if it did not. Mr.
President, with all due respect, there is no valid reason for
your action, ethically or politically. And it is certainly
inconsistent with your positions that you have taken.
Your presence and comments in Oklahoma last week on the
anniversary of the bombing tragedy reflected your deep
concern for those who perished, especially the children. Yet,
you signed the death certificate on Wednesday for countless
equally innocent children. Several weeks ago I saw you
visibly shaken when speaking of the mass murder of the
children in Scotland. You had a chance, with your vote, to
prevent a much greater tragedy. Mr. President, you chose
instead to trade those future lives for votes that you
perceive are crucial to your reelection.
In the past three years I have seen you time and time again
speak out to the thousands, maybe millions, of young
Americans who have been lost to the streets in a life of
murder, destruction and mayhem, of drugs and disease.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the full text of this letter in the
Record.
The letter referred to is as follows:
El Paso, TX,
April 12, 1996.
Hon. Bill Clinton,
President of the United States, Washington, DC.
Dear President Clinton: Wednesday evening when I learned
that you had vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill, I felt
stunned and angry. But mostly, I felt betrayed.
Betrayal is a strong word. However, President Clinton, this
is the anguish that I and many Democrats across the nation
feel now. As a dedicated Democrat, I believed Bill Clinton
during the primary campaign in Texas in 1992, and in the
general election as our nominee when you vowed to protect the
rights of individuals and to forge an era of the New
Democrat. An era that would avoid extremism of either side. I
campaigned for that Bill Clinton and stood proudly in the
cold in Washington at your inauguration when you gave your
message of hope for those who had no voice. But Wednesday,
with your veto, you ignored the rights of innocent little
children and literally sentenced them (thousands probably
before this madness is brought to an end) to their deaths.
[[Page H3559]]
Unlike the debate over abortion that has been ongoing for
decades, this procedure is clearly the brutal taking of a
human life. The right-to-choose position of the Democratic
Party has largely been driven by the belief that a fetus
cannot survive outside the mother's womb. But in this case,
medical evidence is clear that these babies could survive--
but are destroyed in the most vicious and inhumane way
possible. Our society demands that even dogs be destroyed in
a more humane fashion.
For what purpose, Mr. President, did you do this? To
satisfy a minority of extremists whose votes you would have
gotten anyway? And please, consider again your
rationalization that you acted to ``protect the safety of the
mother'', when the bill permitted an exception if a doctor
deemed the procedure necessary to save a mother's life. You
know full well the bill would not have received the support
of the Council on Legislation of the American Medical Society
and 73 Democrats in the House if it did not. Mr. President,
with all due respect, there is no valid reason for your
action, ethically or politically. And, it is certainly
inconsistent with other positions you have taken.
Your presence and comments in Oklahoma last week on the
anniversary of the bombing tragedy reflected your deep
concern for those who perished, especially the children. Yet,
you signed the death certificate on Wednesday for countless,
equally innocent children. Several weeks ago I saw you
visibly shaken when speaking of the mass murder of children
in Scotland. You had a chance, with your vote, to prevent a
much greater tragedy. Mr. President, you chose instead to
trade those future lives for votes that you perceived are
crucial for your re-election.
In the past three years I have seen you time and time again
speak out to the thousands, maybe millions of young Americans
who have been lost to the streets in a life of murder,
destruction and mayhem, of drugs and disease. You have
pleaded with them to have respect for human life. But with
this veto, you did the opposite. And we, as party officials,
have been put in the untenable position of having to live
with that decision.
Mr. President, I cannot and will not support this action.
Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support your
candidacy.
As I contempleted this matter over these past days, I was
reminded of the words of the late President Kennedy when he
said, ``Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.'' Thus, it is
with regret and sorrow that on this date, I have submitted my
resignation as a member of the Texas State Democratic
Executive Committee and Chair of the Mexican-American Caucus.
I have informed our State Chairman, Bill White. While I do
not intend to actively support of vote for any Republican or
Independent candidate. I will be asking other Democrats to
consider withholding their support of your candidacy while
continuing to support Democrats for other offices.
Very truly yours,
Jose R. Kennard,
State Committeeman, District 29.
____________________