[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 38 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 20, 1997

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to voice 
my opposition to H.R. 1122. H.R. 1122 as it is written now presents us 
with a moral issue, a religious issue and, as Members of Congress who 
have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, a constitutional issue.
  Partial-birth abortions are performed because a physician, with the 
benefit of his expertise and experience, determines that, given a 
woman's particular circumstances, this procedure is the safest 
available to her; that this is the procedure most likely to preserve 
her health and her future fertility. Only a doctor can make this 
determination. We, in Congress, should not interfere with the close 
relationship that exists between a doctor and patient; but more 
importantly her spiritual leader and her God.
  It is a tragic fact that sometimes a mother's health is threatened by 
the abnormalities of the fetus that she is carrying. When this occurs 
the mother is faced with a terrible decision whether to carry a fetus 
suffering from fatal anomalies to term and in so doing jeopardize her 
own health and future fertility or whether to abort the fetus and 
preserve her chances of bringing a later healthy life into the world.
  When a woman is faced with this type of painful circumstance, it is 
one that she should face free from Government interference. This is too 
intimate, too personal, and too fragile a decision to be a choice made 
by the Government. We should protect the sanctity of the woman's right 
to privacy and of the home by letting this choice remain in her hands. 
Families and their physicians, not politicians, should make these 
difficult decisions. It is a decision that should be between a woman, 
her spiritual leader, and her God.
  I am reminded of the story of King Solomon. In that story Solomon is 
faced with deciding between two women who claim that a certain male 
child is their own. The power and authority to determine to whom that 
child belongs rests only with King Solomon, but in his wisdom this man 
gave those mothers the power to choose the child's fate. In his wisdom, 
King Solomon realized that the relationship between a mother and child 
is one with which the State should not interfere.

  I believe that anti-abortion activists are truly committed to 
preserving the sanctity of life. However, those Members in their 
wisdom, should accept a compromise that would protect the health and 
life of the mother. With such an exception this legislation would have 
been made law last year and many of these procedures could have been 
averted.
  In addition, we can not ignore the fact that H.R. 1122 is 
unconstitutional. We, in Congress, should not attempt to undercut the 
law of the land as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe versus 
Wade. In Roe the Supreme Court held that women had a privacy interest 
in electing to have an abortion. This right is qualified, however, and 
so must be balanced against the State's interest in protecting prenatal 
life. The Roe Court determined that post-viability the State has a 
compelling interest in protecting prenatal life and may ban abortion, 
except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. In line 
with this decision, 41 States have already passed bans on late term 
abortions, except where the life or health of the mother is involved.
  In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, the Court held that the States 
may not limit a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability when it 
places an ``undue burden'' on that right. An undue burden is one that 
has ``the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the 
path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.'' Let's not 
try to overturn the law of the land.
  H.R. 1122 in its current form interferes with a woman's access to the 
abortion procedure that her doctor has determined to be safest for her, 
and so unduly burdens her right to choose. It is therefore inconsistent 
with the principles outlined in Roe and Casey, which have been 
reaffirmed by every subsequent Supreme Court decision on this issue, 
and so is unconstitutional.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1122 and in so doing signal 
their commitment to preserving the health and future fertility of 
American women and to upholding the U.S. Constitution.

                          ____________________