[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8640-H8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 262 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 262
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to
consider in the House a single motion that the House concur
in each of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the Committee on Rules met to grant
a rule that provides for a motion to concur to the Senate amendments to
H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 in the House. It
is a simple rule that provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Supporting this rule and the motion to agree to the Senate amendments
will allow us to complete the long legislative process on this bill.
H.R. 1122 would then be ready to be sent to the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President will again have the
opportunity to end the cruel procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
During the Committee on Rules hearing yesterday, we heard impassioned
pleas to make two amendments in order, one by the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey] and one by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Neither of those amendments were ruled in order.
I respect their heartfelt sentiments on this emotional issue. But I
would like to point out that if we went through the normal legislative
process, going to conference with the other body and working out our
differences, the subsequent conference report would not be amendable
either.
It may be alleged that the majority on the Committee on Rules is
trying to cut off debate on this issue. Nothing could be further from
the truth. We are merely trying to complete this legislative process in
a timely manner.
The two proposed amendments have not gone through the normal process.
They have both expanded the scope of the bill and contain language that
should be carefully deliberated by my colleagues so that we are all
completely sure what they mean.
{time} 1045
With respect to H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments, the two
substitute amendments offered by the minority are irrelevant. The
amendments would ban third-trimester abortion except to save the
mother's life or health.
While that may sound perfectly reasonable, the vast majority of
partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth month of
pregnancy, not the third trimester. Further, the health exemption would
effectively permit all abortions. The Supreme Court interprets health
abortions so broadly as to include all those related to social,
psychological, financial, or emotional concerns. I realize that the
Hoyer amendment defined health in another manner.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution, provided testimony that indicated that there was
still a great deal of latitude given to abortionists to determine if
the health exemption applied.
Despite all the attention that will be given to what is not on the
floor today, I would now like to focus on what is going to be on the
floor today, a ban on the brutal procedure known as partial-birth
abortion, with protection for the life of the mother, and let me be
perfectly clear that if her life is in jeopardy, the ban does not
apply, and fines and possible prison terms for physicians who violate
the ban and perform this atrocity.
This resolution will allow us to vote on accepting three acceptable,
simple Senate amendments which delete some
[[Page H8641]]
language in the life exception. The bill still bans partial-birth
abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother,
clarifies the definition of partial-birth abortion, and allows a
physician to present evidence in court from the State medical licensing
authority on whether the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save
the life of the mother.
There is little debate about the brutality of this procedure. In
fact, the gruesome and violent partial-birth abortions are
unconscionable. It has been confirmed that thousands of these
procedures are performed every year. Many of those are elective and
performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. More than 80 percent
of the American people and the American Medical Association support
banning this practice. We live in a civilized society, one that cannot
consciously condone or tolerate such inhumane and uncivilized
procedures.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Senate
amendments to H.R. 1122. It is time we complete our work on this
important bill, and take a step closer to banning this most monstrous
type of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule
would allow the Congress to take up once again one of the most shameful
bills that has ever come before this Chamber. In their war against a
woman's right to choose, antichoice forces have shown that they are
willing to sacrifice a woman's health and her future fertility to
pursue the extreme agenda by passing H.R. 1122.
The House will be asked today to adopt the Senate amendments to H.R.
1122. These amendments consist of three minor changes that were made in
order to secure the controversial endorsement of the American Medical
Association.
These changes do not alter the substance of the bill, which seeks for
the first time ever, ever, Mr. Speaker, to make a specific medical
procedure a Federal crime. Rather, these changes provide further
protection for doctors who may face prosecution under this proposal if
it becomes law. Evidently, antichoice advocates are more interested in
protecting a doctor's license than a woman's health.
I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to part of a letter I
received from a Texas women's health clinic. It states:
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the AMA
speaks for all physicians on this issue. It does not speak
for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
the doctors most intimately concerned with women's
reproductive health; it does not speak for the 13,000 members
of the American Women's Medical Association; and it does not
speak for us, doctors who provide abortions to the women who
need them.
Less than a year ago the President made it clear that he will veto
any bill that does not pass the test of the four women who visited him
in his office, explaining that the procedure we are discussing today
was necessary to preserve their health, their lives, and their
reproductive ability. This bill fails that test once more.
It is not the role of Congress to determine the appropriateness of
medical procedures. The doctor-patient relationship has been accepted
as totally private in this country. Congress is inserting itself into
the most private of decisions, and saying that we are more competent
than our women and their doctors to make medical judgments.
As one of the few Members of Congress with a background in public
health, I can tell the Members this most assuredly is not the case. I
would like to read from a letter dated October 3 from the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
They state:
This organization, representing 38,000 physicians dedicated
to improving women's health, continues to oppose the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, and urges the House of
Representatives to reject this legislation.
These physicians believe that H.R. 1122, as amended, continues to
represent an inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous intervention
into a medical decision.
The amended bill still fails to include an exception for the
protection of the health of the woman. Further, the amended bill still
violates a fundamental principle at the very heart of the doctor-
patient relationship: that the doctor, in consultation with the
patient, based on what the patient's individual circumstances are, must
choose the most appropriate method of care for the patient.
This bill removes decisionmaking about medical appropriateness from
the physician and from the patient. This bill is vague and broad. With
the potential to restrict other techniques in obstetrics and
gynecology, it fails to use recognized medical terminology and fails to
define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes.
Moreover, the ban applies to all stages of pregnancy. It thus would
have a chilling effect on medical behavior and decisionmaking with a
potential to outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and
health of American women.
Let us defeat this rule and defeat the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment that
would make in order the Hoyer amendment, which was the same language
offered by Senator Daschle during Senate consideration. It would ban
all postviability abortions except where continuation of the pregnancy
would endanger the life of the mother or risk grievous injury to her
health.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat the
previous question, and also to get rid of those Senate amendments to
H.R. 1122.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], our illustrious chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding
time to me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of this rule and the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act. I would just take exception to the statement of
the gentlewoman from Rochester, NY, that this is the most shameful bill
ever brought to this floor. I think what is shameful is the fact that
these heinous procedures are allowed against about-to-be-born helpless
children. For us to delay even another hour would be, in itself,
shameful.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a motion to
agree with the Senate amendments, and this is the right procedure to
use in this case because if the Senate-passed version is changed in any
way, in other words, the legislation has to go back to the Senate for
further action, and if that happens, that means that the window of
opportunity for laying this bill on the desk of the President just will
not happen this year.
Is it right to delay this bill? Some say, why can we not do it in
January or February? I would just pose the question, how many partial-
birth abortions would take place across this country between now and
next January, February, or March? Given that our colleagues in the
other body have no germaneness rules, who knows what could be hooked
onto this legislation and just how long it could be tied up.
As we get into this debate, I want to provide just a little of the
history of this legislation. In the last Congress, a similar bill was
passed by both the House and Senate. After President Clinton vetoed the
bill, the House voted to override the veto by a vote of 285 to 137,
overwhelming. The Senate fell short of the two-thirds vote necessary to
override the veto, with a vote of 58 to 40. In this Congress, the House
passed this bill by an even wider margin of 295 to 136, which is more
than sufficient to override the veto, far more.
On May 20 the Senate passed the bill with amendments by a vote of 64
to 36, again, widening that margin of support, just three votes short
of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. We are getting very
close to crossing the goal line with this bill. I firmly believe we are
going to make it.
The issue presented by this legislation is absolutely crystal clear:
do we support or do we oppose the procedure called partial-birth
abortion. For me, that answer is without doubt. As my hero, Ronald
Reagan, stated so well, we cannot diminish the value of one category of
human life, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human
[[Page H8642]]
life. There is no cause more important, said Ronald Reagan.
With regard to this legislation, there are at least two things that
are different in this Congress from the last Congress, which gives both
pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates, who oppose this heinous
procedure, which gives us hope that we are going to make it this time.
In the last Congress, when the President vetoed the bill, he
justified that veto by contending that partial-birth abortions occur
only rarely, and only when necessary to save the life of the mother.
That is what the President said. That was his reason for vetoing the
legislation.
It has since become clear that much of the information which the
President relied on in reaching that conclusion was erroneous. The
information was so wrong that one of the strongest supporters of
partial-birth abortion admitted publicly that he deliberately misled
the American people, he deliberately misled this Congress, and he
deliberately misled the President of the United States in making that
statement on which he vetoed the bill.
On February 25 of this year Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director
of the second largest abortion provider in the Nation, admitted, and
many Members saw this, and if not, I will recall it to them, admitted
on Nightline, and later in the New York Times, and we have the
publication of the New York Times, that he lied through his teeth, he
lied through his teeth, about this terrible procedure. Partial-birth
abortions do in fact happen far more often than previously
acknowledged, and on healthy mothers bearing healthy babies. That is
what he said.
There is a second thing that is different in this Congress from the
last Congress. That is, the number of votes against partial-birth
abortions has increased in both the House and Senate, which I have just
outlined. This legislation is picking up momentum.
In order to build on that momentum, I would ask Members, whether they
are pro-life or pro-choice, because we all gather together on this
important issue, to support the rule and support the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, a very respected
Member on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful
statement, and I am well aware of his strong feelings on this. But I
want to pursue, if I might, just a couple of questions, because of the
difficulty of this.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would let me reclaim my
time, we are pressed with the time that we are allocating. If the
gentleman would like to get his time, I will stay here and answer any
questions, even though I have to go to the Committee on Rules in a few
minutes. So I must reclaim, and ask the gentleman to get his time. I
will be glad to speak to the gentleman.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I
have great respect for Members of Congress who are genuinely pro-life.
Some even believe if a woman is the victim of incest or rape, the
Federal Government should prevent her from terminating the pregnancy.
While I strongly disagree with that opinion, I can respect those who
honestly believe it. But what I cannot respect is a bill that is
designed for sound bites, not saving babies.
We all know this bill will pass today. Why? Because it is designed
for maximum impact in 8-second sound bites and 30-second attack ads.
{time} 1100
If we want to save babies, we do not outlaw one type of abortion
procedure and allow all other types of late-term abortion procedures to
be perfectly legal. That is why this bill might be good politics, but
it will not save one baby.
If someone wants a late-term abortion under this bill, their doctor
can just use a procedure not outlawed by the bill. As someone who
helped pass, as a Texas Senator, a ban on late-term abortions in Texas
in 1987, I think it is tragic that the supporters of this bill would
not even allow us to offer an amendment similar to the Texas law, an
amendment that would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures,
not just one procedure, and providing an exemption in rare cases where
the mother's life or health are endangered. Denying us that amendment
might have been good politics, but it is terrible policy.
The consequences of that political decision are real. First, now,
today, we have a bill that will not prohibit all late-term abortion
procedures, so no babies will be saved.
Second, the bill will be vetoed by the President, and is
unconstitutional, because it has no health exception and limits women's
choices in the second trimester, even before viability. Federal judges
have already stopped such similar bills in 10 States across this
Nation.
Third, women in tragic, tragic cases where their fetus has zero
chance of survival, zero chance, will be forced by the Federal
Government and politicians to go through a procedure that can endanger
her health and stop her from ever having babies again.
I may be in the minority vote today, Mr. Speaker, but I, for one, am
not willing to sacrifice one woman's fertility, one woman's chance to
have the joy of having a baby in order to pass a sound bite bill that
is unconstitutional. That is simply a price that no woman in America
should have to pay for my political convenience or anyone else's.
Mr. Speaker, while I can respect genuine pro-life, I will not sit by
silently and let some proponents of this bill suggest that those of us
who oppose this bill support taking a healthy baby, just moments before
a normal childbirth, and crushing the baby's skull. That is deceitful,
it is dishonest, and it is wrong. It is not true, and they know it.
I strongly oppose late-term abortions. If there is one done for
frivolous reasons, it should be illegal, but when a woman's health is
in danger, I, like many Americans, believe that difficult choice should
not be made by politicians in Washington, DC, but by a woman, her
family, and her doctor.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: We could have passed 2 years ago, 2
years ago, the bill that pro-lifers supported in Texas as far back as
1987. That law would be saving babies today. Instead, because of the
proponents' approach, their political approach, we have no Federal law.
We could pass that Texas bill on this House floor today. The President
would sign it tomorrow, and it could save babies the day after that.
But sadly, this Committee on Rules has chosen not to even give us
Members of the House the right to cast that vote of conscience and
belief. That is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy is that to some, the politics of this
bill has become more important than saving babies.
I believe it is time to save babies' lives, not sound bites. That is
why I hope the President will once again have the courage to veto this
bill, so that we can finally work together to pass a bill that will
save babies rather than political careers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, regardless of my colleagues' position on this
difficult emotional issue, if Members of Congress believe that we
should all have the right to express a vote of deep conscience and
conviction, then my colleagues should oppose this unfair closed rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time. I want to express my gratitude to the Committee
on Rules for bringing forward this rule.
Comments have been made about whether the proponents of this bill are
doing what they can to reduce abortions. It has been suggested that
another proposal which has been advanced by the President would
actually be more effective in dealing with reducing abortions. I will
leave it to the candid judgment of the people of this country whether
it is the supporters or the opponents of this bill who are interested
in reducing the number of abortions performed in America. I think the
record of those who are supporting this bill speaks pretty clearly on
that subject.
[[Page H8643]]
It has been contended that partial-birth abortion is, in some cases,
necessary to protect the health of the mother. That is simply untrue.
Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of a
woman. Hundreds of obstetricians and gynecologists and maternal fetal
specialists have come forward to unequivocally state that partial-birth
abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or
her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a
significant threat to both.
The American Medical Association, which is on record in support of
abortion rights, supports banning partial-birth abortion because it is
not necessary and it is, and I quote, not good medicine.
Furthermore, in an American Medical News article, Dr. Warren Hern, a
late-term abortionist, disputed the safety of partial-birth abortion. I
want to quote directly from this article. It says even some in the
abortion-provider community find the partial-birth abortion procedure
difficult to defend. ``I have very serious reservations about this
procedure,'' said Colorado physician Warren Hern, M.D.
The author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely-used
textbook on abortion standards and procedures, Dr. Hern specializes in
late-term procedures. He opposes the bill, he said, because he thinks
Congress has no business dabbling in the practice of medicine. But of
the procedure in question, he says, ``You really can't defend it. I'm
not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure.
But I'm not going to do it.''
Dr. Hern's concerns center on claims that the procedure in late-term
pregnancy can be safest for a pregnant woman and without this
procedure, women would have died. ``I would dispute any statement that
this is the safest procedure to use,'' he said.
Turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous, he
added. ``You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism
or placental abruption if you do that.''
Pamela Smith, M.D., director of medical education, Department of Ob-
Gyn at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, added two more concerns:
cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by 3 days of
forceful dilation of the cervix and uterine rupture caused by rotating
the fetus within the womb.
Partial-birth abortion is used by some abortionists for their own
convenience. It is never necessary to partially deliver a live child
and jam scissors into the back of that child's head to preserve a
mother's health. Think about it. Look at what they do. How is partially
delivering the child, jamming scissors in the child's head, in any way
calculated to protect the health of the mother? If the pregnancy must
be terminated because of the health of the mother, if the child must be
delivered, the child can be delivered without stabbing the child in the
back of the head.
This is an argument that has absolutely no merit. It is an argument
that is being advanced in defense of a procedure that simply cannot be
defended.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the women who undergo this late-term
abortion procedure do so, they do so when they are left with no other
choice. Often, this procedure is the only one which will save the life
of the mother and preserve her fertility so that one day, in fact, she
can have the chance to have another healthy child.
I received a letter from one of my constituents who underwent this
procedure. The child that she was carrying was the victim of a
chromosomal abnormality so rare that it does not even have a name. Her
child was missing genetic information, was missing internal organs, and
her digestive system was in difficulty.
After meeting with her rabbi, with a genetics counselor, talking with
her doctor and with her family, my constituent decided to have this
procedure because her doctor told her that it would preserve her
ability to have another child.
She is now the proud mother of a young girl, realizing, fulfilling
the dreams of herself and her family to be able to have a baby. She
deeply mourns the child that she lost, but she is grateful that she had
the chance to have that baby girl, a chance that she would not have had
if she had been forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
This bill would have taken that decision out of the constituent's
hands and out of the hands of her doctors, and yes, there are many,
many doctors who believe that what my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are trying to do is to take the decision out of the hands of
the doctors.
This is the most painful decision that any woman, any family will
ever have to make. Families deserve to make it for themselves, and that
is why I oppose this bill and this rule.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly wanted to ban
this procedure, they would have made in order a Democratic alternative
that would have included an exemption in the cases when the health of
the mother is at risk. They refuse to deal with the issue of the health
of the mother. The President has said that he will veto any bill that
does not include a health exemption, and indeed, he has already vetoed
a virtually identical bill.
Instead, what they do is they insist on playing partisan politics
with women. We are not going to stand for it. The President is not
going to stand for it, and my friends, the women of America are not
going to stand for it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to
oppose this bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a very unfortunate
story, but the most unfortunate thing about the story is the woman was
lied to by her physician, for in fact there is never a medical reason
to care for any anomaly associated with pregnancy in this way.
This debate is not going to be centered around truth. It has not
been. There is never an indication to use this procedure to save the
life of a woman. And if, in fact, that were not true, the bill still
protects for that. So it is a specious argument to say that partial-
birth abortion is required to save the life of a woman. It is just
absolutely untrue.
Now, why would I say that? I have cared for every imaginable type of
anatomic, genetic defect in the over 3,200 babies that I have cared
for, let alone the other 1,000 or so pregnancies that did not come to
fruition. Why? Why do we have the partial-birth abortion? We have the
partial-birth abortion as a convenience to abortionists.
Now, it makes good rhetoric to say that this saves the life of a
woman; it makes good rhetoric to say that this is the only way we can
in fact allow that choice for that woman in a very unfortunate
situation, but it is not medically true, it is not scientifically true.
But it philosophically supports the idea that no matter what we want,
if we want to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, for any
cause, then we ought to do this.
The argument ought to be on the basis of what people think, and if
one really believes that, then one ought to stand up and say that. Some
80 percent of the babies that have been aborted this way were
absolutely normal, nothing wrong with them. Look at Bergen County, NJ.
Look at the data. It is truly representative of what goes across this
country, it is truly representative of what happens in the reproductive
field in this country. It is OK if in fact one believes that one ought
to be able to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, in any way,
but stand up and say that. Do not distort what the medical information
is.
{time} 1115
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying.
His representation is that the doctor did not tell the patient the
truth.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, absolutely.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, in
the instance if one accepts the premise that the condition existed, I
would ask the gentleman what alternative would he have recommended.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, easy. The doctor
[[Page H8644]]
would do the same thing in terms of preparing, if the life need to be
terminated for the life of the woman, which in fact in this case I do
not know the details, I cannot say.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to accept that as a
premise.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
accepting that as a premise, that in fact if the life of the woman was
in danger, could it have been done? Easy. It is called prostaglandin
induction, and without putting the woman at risk.
The other false statement is that this procedure is known to put the
woman's fertility at risk, not ensure her future fertility. Every major
obstetrical textbook says doctors should not forcefully dilate the
cervix. This procedure forcefully dilates the cervix.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
did not get the term. What would have been the result?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, spontaneous
abortion that would have occurred without a puncture vacuum evacuation
of the cranium.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, and the
fetus or the child would not have survived?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know, and the
gentleman does not know. Many times babies have been born in my care
that would not survive. We chose not to make the decision on what their
survival would be. Physicians are not that accurate in terms of life
and death. We obviously are human, and we make those mistakes.
My point is, this woman, if in fact she needed to be evacuated, could
be evacuated in many ways other than this method.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I would
ask the doctor, I am correct then that eliminating this prior would not
necessarily eliminate the abortion?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it would not. The
gentleman is correct.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if I may add for just a moment to what the doctor has
said, if the doctor does not know, how does he expect Members of
Congress to make this decision? Why should we be doing that?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of knowing life or death;
it is a matter of knowing techniques that are used. There is a very big
difference in saying that we can use a procedure that is a convenience
to the abortionist that is heinous, that is totally cruel and inhumane,
versus the methods that are available that are not.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the
gentleman whether it bothers him at all as a physician that the
Congress of the United States is outlawing for the first time and
making a Federal crime a medical procedure?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield,
this is not a medical procedure in my estimation. This is murder. This
has nothing to do with medicine. It has to do with murder at the
convenience of the abortionist.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am saddened beyond
measure every time we debate this issue. Every one of us who has been
brought up by a woman that we consider brilliant and wonderful suddenly
decides here that the women in the country do not have any sense at all
and, if this Congress did not act, they might do something really
dreadful.
Well, for all of my colleagues who have never had the honor of
carrying a baby, let me say it does not work that way. Women who
undergo this procedure want these babies desperately. The fact that at
almost the point of birth they find that they cannot carry that baby to
term is heartbreaking for them.
Mr. Speaker, I pray that none of my colleagues, and none of their
family members, ever have to reach that decision. But for heavens sake,
I do not believe it is the province of the House of Representatives to
determine whether or not that woman can get that procedure. In fact, I
would wager to my colleagues, if that decision were to be made, a woman
and her family facing that and this procedure was outlawed, I do not
believe that the doctor would stop it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there truly is no rest for the weary. And I
tell my colleagues, the women of this country are weary. They are just
plain tired of the constant stream of attacks launched by the
Republican leadership in this House.
Mr. Speaker, today's assault on women is especially dangerous. It is
dangerous because it puts women's health at risk.
I rise in opposition to this rule today because it does not allow an
amendment to safeguard the health of women in this country. The health
of women should be what this bill is about, Mr. Speaker. Instead, this
bill makes complicated medical pronouncements while ignoring the health
of women, those who are most affected.
That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's
Association all strongly oppose this legislation. These groups oppose
the bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt women, plain and simple,
hurt women.
Mr. Speaker, it continues to amaze me that Members of this House have
so little faith in women, the very people who bear and raise the
children of this country, so little faith that they would deny them
access to the lifesaving procedures out of some ridiculous notion that
pregnant women do not care about their children, that they wait until
the last moment to abort a pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, put women ahead of politics. I
urge my colleagues, defeat the previous question. I urge my colleagues
to let the decisions be made between the women and their doctors.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the body that the
testimony before Congress is that over 80 percent of these that are
performed were elective. That is the testimony before the committees of
this Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Coburn], in that testimony, was the testimony as to at what stage that
was done?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it was across the stage, most of them more
than viable, greater than 22\1/2\ weeks.
Mr. HOYER. Postviability?
Mr. COBURN. Postviability.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Slaughter] for her courage and leadership in defending women of
America, their lives and their safety.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amended version of
H.R. 1122. This bill, in its original form and as amended, puts at
great risk women's health and future fertility. The bill provides no
exception to protect a woman's health. It would prevent a qualified
doctor from using a medical procedure that could be the most medically
appropriate one to save the life and health of a woman.
This House of Representatives lacks the extensive medical
qualifications needed to determine what is in the best interest of the
patient. Why are we in the House of Representatives now choosing and
deciding about medical procedures? It is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, this bill forces qualified physicians to make a choice
between their best medical judgment and a prison sentence. Doctors
should not have to fear criminal prosecution for providing what they
have determined to be the most compassionate care possible for a woman
in an excruciating circumstance, and that circumstance is
[[Page H8645]]
that the baby is not viable, that the baby is lost, that people who
have been joyfully expecting a new baby have to face the terrible
reality that the baby is not going to survive. This is just the most
helpful way in terms of the woman to proceed, if the doctor, the woman,
and her family decide to go this way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect the health of the woman
and vote against this legislation which is both unconstitutional and
inappropriate.
Let me say that I understand how difficult this issue is for all of
us. It is not easy to have this kind of discussion. But I believe that
this is not an issue that rests with Congress. This legislation
destroys the family's right to face a devastating circumstance with
safety and dignity.
The President will not sign a bill that threatens this right. This
decision is appropriately made by the woman. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no''.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] that the American Medical Association has not
recognized this procedure as a medically necessary procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of this rule on H.R.
1122, which will ban this partial-birth procedure.
Each day we have an opportunity to craft legislation in this Chamber
that is going to affect the lives of men and women and children all
across this Nation. Today is no different. But today we have an
opportunity also to restore some morality to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the decision that we are faced with,
after hearing the graphic illustrations, after listening to the
testimony, after listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
having delivered 2,200 babies, state that this is not a necessary
medical procedure; listening to former people who were in charge of
this issue who used to be pro-abortion who have now voted in favor of
outlawing this procedure. The testimony is clear. The evidence is
direct. There should be no divisiveness on this issue.
Protecting the life of unborn children after viability should not be
an issue. As a Nation, as a family, we should come together on this
issue. We should come to agree on this issue. Postviability abortion is
wrong. Partial-birth abortions are wrong. Killing the unborn baby is
wrong.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about the life of the mother. We have
already heard from the testimony of Dr. Coburn and other people that
there are other ways and other procedures and other things that can be
done. Taking the life of an unborn child once viability is proven is
clear-cut murder. It is wrong. We should not allow it.
We must come together as a body, we must come together as a Nation,
to heal this situation. Today we have that opportunity. Vote in favor
of H.R. 1122.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a comment. Although
Dr. Coburn has his opinion, that is just one doctor.
I would like to say that a panel convened by the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that while it is not the only
option, ``An intact D&X may be the best or most appropriate procedure
in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of
a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based
upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision.''
Mr. Speaker, if we believe this is murder, we should be filing
criminal charges, and I do not see anybody doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I wrestle with this issue
more than any other. It hits in every possible way, moral, physical. It
is a gut-wrenching issue.
Like most Americans, I oppose late-term abortion. Like most
Americans, I would support late-term abortion only to save the life of
the mother or to protect her health, to protect her from serious health
endangerment.
This legislation does not do this. This legislation does not seek to
protect the health of the mother. If people wanted to truly ban late-
term abortions, we would not ban one procedure, we would ban all late-
term abortions, which I have voted for, except to save the life of the
mother or to protect her from serious health risks.
Mr. Speaker, agonizing about this, I called three physicians across
the country, three ob/gyn's. I respect the opinion of the gentleman
from Oklahoma. They do not agree with him. That is a fair statement
that there is not agreement on this. But those three ob/gyn's who have
done a wide range of deliveries, who each of them have been delivering
babies at least 23 years, all of them said that this procedure in
limited circumstances was necessary.
In fact, I believe in each case they had performed the procedure in
many, many years of deliveries only twice, and in two cases at least
then necessary to protect the health of the mother, because the child
was going to be born dead, was hydrocephalic, and they felt there was
no other way to do it and to protect the life of the mother.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees
with what this Congress is about to do today. I have heard about the
American Medical Association, but the physicians that actually deliver
the babies, they disagree and they think that this is a bad piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that late-term abortions should not be
allowed except when the mother's life or her health would be seriously
in danger. But I cannot vote for this legislation, because that means I
have to look a woman in the eye and say, even though there may have
been a medical procedure that would have protected your health, the
Congress voted not to let it be done.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the amount of
time left for each side, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina [Ms. Myrick] has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
{time} 1130
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because the
rule leaves out the possibility that we can consider a bill that is
constitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, and State laws
have been thrown out recently because the Supreme Court has said that
we cannot restrict a woman's right to choose if the restriction
endangers the life and health of the mother.
Mr. Speaker, nine State lawsuits have been decided just this year
that have thrown out similar State laws. For example, in Michigan the
court said that such a ban ``would operate to eliminate one of the
safest post-first-trimester abortion procedures,'' and the court
therefore found that a woman would have to go into riskier procedures
and they threw out the law.
In Nebraska the ban was unconstitutional because it would subject
patients to ``appreciably greater risk of injury or death.'' That law
was enjoined just this year.
In Montana, just this year, the court concluded that there would be
an increase in the amount of risk and pain that must be suffered, and
they enjoined the implementation of the law.
Louisiana, they found that it would be unduly burdensome by virtue of
banning the safest, most common procedures used after the first
trimester.
Mr. Speaker, State after State after State concluded that the law was
unconstitutional. We need to defeat the previous question so that we
can consider the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland
that would make the law constitutional so that we can consider a
constitutional law. I would hope that we would defeat the previous
question, adopt the Hoyer amendment, or defeat the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered what would happen if
Congress based our decisions on truth and logic. Today we are debating
a rule
[[Page H8646]]
for banning partial-birth abortion. Some will say the procedure is
necessary but the gentleman from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, was very clear.
He says that it is unnecessary, and he has delivered 3,200 children. I
think he probably knows what he is talking about. Some will say it is
needed to allow for the health of the mother. That is really undefined.
It could mean a headache or perhaps an emotional strain.
The truth is this procedure is not needed. Its purpose is very
simple. It is for the convenience of performing abortions. It is to
satisfy a very specific group here in America, the abortion industry.
That is why in my estimation an abortionist from Wichita, KS, traveled
to Washington, DC, to attend a Presidential coffee, contributed $25,000
to the Democratic National Party, following the President's veto of the
partial-birth abortion ban.
There is a letter then from the Pope condemning the President for
this veto. It is very interesting the Pope has only written about six
such letters this century, all the Popes this century. And they include
people like Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Qadhafi, Adolf Hitler, tyrants,
all tyrants who placed a very low value on human life.
The opposition to this rule and the opposition to this ban is very
simple. It is merely support for the abortion industry, purely to
support those who want the convenience of this procedure. It is not
necessary medically. It is not needed for the health of the mother. It
is just a convenience for the abortion industry. That is the truth and
the logic behind this debate. That is the truth and logic behind these
arguments, simply to support the abortion industry.
I say to my colleagues, let us support H.R. 1122. Let us support this
rule and let us ban this hideous procedure that is not necessary, not
for medical reasons, not for political reasons, purely to support the
abortion industry.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this issue is one that
generates a great deal of emotion. I appreciate that we all may agree
and disagree. I think the strength of our democracy belongs in that
opportunity to agree and disagree and to have our voices be heard.
I am compelled to speak on this issue, one, because the law does
indicate that a woman in this Nation has a right to choose. I am
distressed that our leaders did not see fit to provide an open rule so
that all of our views could be expressed. I do not ask my colleagues to
agree with me but I do ask them to allow me the opportunity to vote on
my position and the rights of women to choose.
Yesterday afternoon at the Committee on Rules both the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]
offered amendments. The committee, however, did not see fit to make
either of these amendments in order. This should have been an open
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this rule be opposed and defeated and, in the
alternative, that these amendments be allowed so that all of our voices
and all of our views can be represented, and the law can be
represented, and a woman's right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the closed rule
on H.R. 1122 that is before us. There is a great deal of emotion
surrounding the debate on H.R. 1122. While I may not agree with some of
my colleagues views on this issue, I respect that those views are both
thoughtful and deeply held. I believe that the strength of our
democracy lies in the fact that we open the door to all voices and all
opinions--both those that we disagree with and those that we do not.
It is for this reason that I am compelled to speak. I am distressed
that this rule does not respect or acknowledge the divergence in our
views. I do not ask my colleagues to agree with me on the issue of
abortion, or to vote with me, but I do ask that they allow me the
opportunity to cast a vote that reflects my views.
Yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee meeting, both
Representatives Lowey and Hoyer offered amendments to H.R. 1122. The
committee, however, did not see fit to make either of these amendments
in order. I would like to say that I was surprised upon hearing this
decision, but I cannot. Once again the committee has issued a
restrictive rule that denies the Members of this Congress the
opportunity to vote on an alternative to their favored legislation.
I find it particularly interesting that the committee has denied this
House a vote on Mr. Hoyer's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
That amendment would have banned all abortions in the final trimester
allowing only a very narrow exception for the life and physical health
of the mother. In fact, this is a much broader ban than that currently
in H.R. 1122. It seems to me that if the goal of this bill's sponsors
was truly to protect life, then they would support the Hoyer amendment.
My colleagues this rule does not respect the divergence of our views.
It does not allow Members to cast a vote for an alternative that
reflects those views. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote
against this rule on H.R. 1122.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendments to
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I urge my colleagues to really
think for a moment about what we are debating here today.
This is not a bill that will end a persons's choice. This is not a
vote that will overturn Roe versus Wade. This vote will not end a
person's right to terminate their pregnancy. And this vote will not
endanger the lives of pregnant women across this country.
This vote will save innocent children from having their lives ended
before they have a chance to speak. This vote will simply prohibit one
and only one type of particularly gruesome abortion, a type of abortion
where a live baby, one that could usually survive outside the womb, is
partially delivered, then has the first vision of light snuffed out
forever.
With modern medical procedures available, we must ask ourselves if it
is necessary to sacrifice innocent children because it is convenient or
easier for the parents. I do not think so and neither do millions of
Americans across this country who believe, just as I do, that life is
too precious to waste.
A couple from Michigan could have chosen to abort their baby when
they were told that the baby had a tumor that endangered her life. When
she was only 4 inches long, Sarah Elizabeth was briefly removed from
her mother's womb so doctors could remove the growing tumor. Sarah's
heart stopped beating during the surgery and the surgeon performed CPR
for 20 minutes to revive her before returning her to the safety of the
womb. In July 1996, Sarah was delivered and is now a healthy toddler.
Time and time again medical miracles like Sarah's show us that a child
in the womb is a unique, irreplaceable and precious human being
deserving of our help and protection.
Unfortunately, even as lives like Sarah's are being saved by
scientific breakthroughs, other children's lives are being extinguished
by partial-birth abortions. The care Sarah received from a
conscientious surgeon provides a stark contrast to the treatment her
mother might have legally have chosen, a partial-birth abortion.
Sarah was not in perfect physical health when she was growing in her
mother's womb. She had a life-threatening condition. But she, like
every other precious unborn baby, was always a perfect child in need of
love and care.
Support this bill and give thousands of children like Sarah at least
a chance at life.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to urge Members to defeat the previous question. If it is
defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered in the Committee on
Rules yesterday by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. The
amendment is the same language offered by Senator Daschle during Senate
consideration.
Members of this House deserve an opportunity to vote on this
substitute. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment:
Amendment to House Resolution 262
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1122)
to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth
[[Page H8647]]
abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in
the House, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, a single motion offered by Representative
Hoyer of Maryland that the House concur in the amendments of
the Senate with an amendment. The Senate amendments and the
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.''.
____
Hoyer Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1122 as Amended
by the Senate
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Abortion Ban
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade, the
government has an ``important and legitimate interest in
preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman .
. . and has still another important and legitimate interest
in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests
are separate and distinct. Each grow in substantiality as the
woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each
becomes compelling''.
(2) In delineating at what point the Government's interest
in fetal life becomes ``compelling'', Roe v. Wade held that
``a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate
decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability'', a
conclusion reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey.
(3) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Casey also reiterated the holding in Roe v. Wade that the
government's interest in potential life becomes compelling
with fetal viability, stating that ``subsequent to viability,
the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of
human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe,
abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical
judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother.''
(4) According to the Supreme Court, viability ``is the time
at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and
nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent
existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness
be the object of State protection that now overrides the
rights of the woman.''
(5) The Supreme Court has thus indicated that it is
constitutional for Congress to ban abortions occurring after
viability so long as the ban does not apply when a woman's
life or health faces a serious threat.
(6) Even when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy to
save the life or health of the mother, every medically
appropriate measure should be taken to deliver a viable
fetus.
(7) It is well established that women may suffer serious
health conditions during pregnancy, such as breast cancer,
preeclampsia, uterine rupture or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
among others, that may require the pregnancy to be
terminated.
(8) While such situations are rare, not only would it be
unconstitutional but it would be unconscionable for Congress
to ban abortions in such cases, forcing women to endure
severe damage to their health and in some cases, risk early
death.
(9) In cases where the mother's health is not at such high
risk, however, it is appropriate for Congress to assert its
``compelling interests'' in fetal life by prohibiting
abortions after fetal viability.
(10) While many States have banned abortions of viable
fetuses, in some States it continues to be legal for a
healthy woman to abort a viable fetus.
(11) As a result, women seeking abortions may travel
between the States to take advantage of differing State laws.
(12) To prevent abortions of viable fetuses not
necessitated by severe medical complications, Congress must
act to make such abortions illegal in all States.
(13) Abortion of a viable fetus should be prohibited
throughout the United States, unless a woman's life or health
is threatened and, even when it is necessary to terminate the
pregnancy, every measure should be taken, consistent with the
goals of protecting the mother's life and health, to preserve
the life and health of the fetus.
CHAPTER 74--ABORTION PROHIBITION
Sec.
1531. Prohibition.
1532. Penalties.
1533. State regulations.
1534. Rule of construction.
1531. Prohibition.
(a) In General: It shall be unlawful for a physician to
abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies that the
continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's
life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.
(b) Grievous Injury:
(1) In general: For purposes of subsection (a), the term
``grievous injury'' means--
(A) a severely debilitating disease or impairment
specifically caused by the pregnancy; or
(B) an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-
threatening condition.
(2) Limitation: The term ``grievous injury'' does not
include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or
any condition for which termination of pregnancy is not
medically indicated.
(c) Physician: In this chapter, the term ``physician''
means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized
to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the
doctor performs such activity, or any other individual
legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, except
that any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise
legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who
nevertheless directly performs an abortion in violation of
subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions of this
section.
(d) No Conspiracy: No woman who has had an abortion after
fetal viability may be prosecuted under this section for a
conspiracy to violate this section or for an offense under
section 2, 3, 4, or 1512 of title 18, United States Code.
1532. Penalties.
(a) Action by Attorney General: The Attorney General, the
Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or
any Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney
specifically designated by the Attorney General may commence
a civil action under this chapter in any appropriate United
States district court to enforce the provisions of this
chapter.
(b) Relief:
(1) First offense: Upon a finding by the court that the
respondent in an action commenced under subsection (a) has
knowingly violated a provision of this chapter, the court
shall notify the appropriate State medical licensing
authority in order to effect the suspension of the
respondent's medical license in accordance with the
regulations and procedures developed by the State under
section 1533(d), or shall assess a civil penalty against
the respondent in an amount not exceeding $100,000, or
both.
(2) Second offense: If a respondent in an action commenced
under subsection (a) has been found to have knowingly
violated a provision of this chapter on a prior occasion, the
court shall notify the appropriate State medical licensing
authority in order to effect the revocation of the
respondent's medical license in accordance with the
regulations and procedures developed by the State under
section 1533(d), or shall assess a civil penalty against the
respondent in an amount not exceeding $250,000, or both.
(3) Hearing: With respect to an action under subsection
(a), the appropriate State medical licensing authority shall
be given notification of and an opportunity to be heard at a
hearing to determine the penalty to be imposed under this
subsection.
(c) Certification Requirements: At the time of the
commencement of an action under subsection (a), the Attorney
General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney
General, or any Assistant Attorney General or United States
Attorney specifically designated by the Attorney General
shall certify to the court involved that, at least 30
calendar days prior to the filing of such action, the
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate
Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General or United
States Attorney involved--
(1) has provided notice of the alleged violation of this
section, in writing, to the Governor or chief executive
officer and attorney general or chief legal officer of the
State or political subdivision involved, as well as to the
State medical licensing board or other appropriate State
agency; and
(2) believes that such an action by the United States is in
the public interest and necessary to secure substantial
justice.
1533. Regulations.
(a) Regulations of Secretary for Certification:
(1) In general: Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this chapter, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall publish proposed regulations for the filing of
certifications by physicians under section 1531(a).
(2) Requirement: The regulations under paragraph (1) shall
require that a certification filed under section 1531(a)
contain--
(A) a certification by the physician (on penalty of
perjury, as permitted under section 1746 of title 28) that,
in his or her best medical judgment, the abortion involved
was medically necessary pursuant to such section; and
(B) a description by the physician of the medical
indications supporting his or her judgment.
(3) Confidentiality: The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate regulations to ensure that the
identity of the mother described in section 1531(a) is kept
confidential, with respect to a certification filed by a
physician under section 1531(a).
(b) Action by State: A State, and the medical licensing
authority of the State, shall develop regulations and
procedures for the revocation or suspension of the medical
license of a physician upon a finding under section 1532 that
the physician has violated a provision of this chapter. A
State that fails to implement such procedures shall be
subject to loss of funding under title XIX of the Social
Security Act.
1534. Rule of Construction.
(1) In general: The requirements of this chapter shall not
apply with respect to post-viability abortions in a State if
there is a State law in effect in the State that regulates,
restricts, or prohibits such abortions to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(2) State law: In paragraph (1), the term ``State law''
includes all laws, decisions,
[[Page H8648]]
rules or regulations of any State, or any other State action
having the effect of law.
(b) Clerical Amendment: The table of chapters for part I of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
74. Prohibition of post-viability abortions
1531. * * *
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortions involve
killing partially delivered babies, usually from the fifth month on
into the later stages of pregnancy. This gruesome procedure consists of
partially delivering the live baby feet first, with only the head
inside the mother's womb, and then stabbing the child at the base of
the skull.
Partial-birth abortions are performed mainly on healthy babies of
healthy mothers. The American Medical Association says that the partial
delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the
womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and doctors. The AMA
could find no identified circumstance in which the procedure was the
only safe and effective abortion method.
The worst tragedy of partial-birth abortions is that most are done
for strictly elective reasons. We must take action to end this heinous
act of killing the innocent unborn.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer], is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule
precludes the one opportunity that Members will have to vote against
late-term abortions, elective or otherwise.
Hear me now, Mr. Speaker. Voting against this rule will be the only
opportunity they have to vote against late-term abortions.
Why do I say that? The American press has done a disservice to the
American people in characterizing the bill before us as a late-term
abortion bill. It is not. It does not mention late term. It is not
about late term. It is about a procedure.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was accurate on that matter.
I want to refer to some of the things that the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Coburn] said, because the Republicans rightfully point to a man
who has experience and, therefore, can speak with more experience than
the rest of us.
First of all, he said that this bill that is pending before us does
not preclude a single abortion, not one. It does not preclude one
abortion, if we vote and pass this bill and the President signs it. It
does prohibit a procedure.
I further asked the gentleman from Oklahoma how many of these
abortions, as a matter of fact, he said, that were done through this
procedure were elective. He said approximately 80 percent, that has
been repeated a number of times, were elective.
I say to my colleagues, if they vote against the rule and allow the
Hoyer amendment to be offered, they will have an opportunity to
preclude every one of those 80 percent abortions that, as the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] said, most were done postviability.
Let me make my statement absolutely accurate. Every postviability
elective abortion, not just done with this procedure but any procedure,
will be outlawed. I want my colleagues to understand, voting against
this rule and voting for the Hoyer amendment, which is the Daschle-
Snowe, Democratic minority leader and Republican Senator from Maine,
the Daschle amendment, is the only opportunity we will have to vote
against late-term abortions and have the Federal law essentially like
43 other States.
This is not an isolated judgment nor an independent act or amendment.
This is an amendment that 43 legislatures have essentially said ought
to be the law. What does it say? It says that it permits a
postviability abortion only if the life of the woman is endangered, to
that extent it tracks the Hyde language, or if carrying the fetus to
term would present the, and I quote, risk of grievous injury to her
physical health. It therefore precludes any claim that this is a Mack
truck exception for mental health.
{time} 1145
It specifically requires grievous physical risk. The amendment
defines grievous injury as meaning that the continuation of the
pregnancy would directly result in, and again I quote from the Hoyer-
Daschle amendment, a severely debilitating disease or impairment, or
prevents a physician from providing necessary treatment for a life-
threatening condition; for example, a fast spreading cancer, the
treatment of which, aggressive chemotherapy, would be incompatible with
carrying a healthy fetus to term.
My colleagues, this imposes a $250,000 fine and possible revocation
of license on the doctor who violates this.
I want to make it very clear to everybody in this House I am opposed
to late term elective abortions. They should not happen in America. If,
on the other hand, we have at risk the life of the mother, that is a
wrenching judgment that the mother and her physician will have to make,
and I will not interpose my judgment in that critical situation.
So I ask the Members of this House to give us an opportunity to state
clearly the policy of the United States of America that late-term
abortions are against public policy. The only way we can do that is to
vote against this rule so that this amendment can be offered to this
bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question of the last speaker.
How does the gentleman's definition in his bill trump the Supreme
Court, which defined health in Doe versus Bolton as a state of
emotional well-being? How does his mere statute trump the Supreme
Court's definition of health?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. How does the Hyde statute, sir?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not talk about the
Supreme Court.
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, nor do I.
Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman not have an answer to my question?
Mr. HOYER. I do.
Mr. HYDE. Well, let us hear it, I am running out of time.
Mr. HOYER. It enunciates the policy of 43 States, I tell my friend
from Illinois, and I think we should enunciate it as a Federal Congress
as being the appropriate and right policy to preclude late-term
abortions.
Mr. HYDE. I welcome the gentleman to the ranks of pro-lifers.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Mike and Nancy Johnson
from Muscogee, OK. I have delivered five babies for them. One of their
babies had a tremendous anencephalic complicated cystic structure on
its brain. Now, this procedure that is supposedly so important that it
has to be there for the life and health of a woman could have been used
on her. But I want to tell my colleagues what they chose to do. They
chose to deliver that baby. And in the delivery room, as that baby was
born, I placed it in the hands of the father, and over the next 2 hours
that baby was comforted in its death.
I want to contrast that with the idea of a child dying in its
father's arms, with the idea of a physician ramming a hole in the back
of a skull and sucking the brains out of a child. Tell me, my
colleagues, which way is the right way to do it?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to
[[Page H8649]]
a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280,
nays 144, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 499]
YEAS--280
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--144
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--9
Foglietta
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hilliard
Lewis (KY)
Nethercutt
Payne
Schiff
Visclosky
{time} 1209
Messrs. KIND, SHAYS, SERRANO, HORN, GILMAN, and NEAL of Massachusetts
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. TURNER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 1215
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 262,
I call up the bill (H.R. 1122), to amend title 18, United States Code,
to ban partial-birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
Senate amendments:
Page 2, line 16, strike out all after ``injury'' down to
and including ``purpose'' in line 17.
Page 3, after line 10 insert:
(3) As used in this section, the term ``vaginally delivers
a living fetus before killing the fetus'' means deliberately
and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or
a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing
a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and
kills the fetus.
Page 3, after line 23, insert:
(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section
may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether
the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the
mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder,
illness or injury.
(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue
at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the
defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial
for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take
place.
Page 3, line 24, strike out ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Motion Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Canady of Florida moves that the House concur in each
of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1122.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey], each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
General Leave
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on the legislation under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge the House to vote for the motion to
concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 1997, a bill which bans an abortion procedure in
which a living baby is partially delivered before the abortionist kills
the baby and completes the delivery.
Under H.R. 1122, an abortionist who violates the ban would be
subjected to fines or a maximum of 2 years imprisonment or both. The
bill also establishes a civil cause of action for damages against an
abortionist who violates the ban.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed each
year, primarily in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on the
healthy babies of healthy mothers. The infants subjected to partial-
birth abortion are not unborn. Their lives instead are taken during a
breech delivery.
[[Page H8650]]
A breech delivery, a procedure which obstetricians use in some
circumstances to bring a healthy child into the world, is perverted and
made into an instrument of death. The physician, traditionally trained
to do everything in his power to assist and protect both mother and
child during the birth process, deliberately kills the child in the
birth canal.
H.R. 1122 would end this cruel practice which bears an undeniable
resemblance to infanticide.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 1122 makes three acceptable changes to
the House-passed version of the bill. The first amendment deletes
superfluous language in the life exception included in the act. The
bill still bans partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save
the life of the mother.
The second amendment clarifies the definition of partial-birth
abortion. H.R. 1122 defines ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an abortion
in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally
delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the
delivery.'' The Senate amendment further clarifies that ``partially
vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus'' means
``deliberately and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living
fetus, or substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a
procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and kills the
fetus.''
The third Senate amendment allows the physician who is prosecuted for
performing a partial-birth abortion to present evidence in court from
the State medical licensing authority on whether the partial-birth
abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.
The Senate voted to approve these three clarifying amendments to H.R.
1122 and passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in May of this year.
Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association House of Delegates
voted to support H.R. 1122 with the Senate amendments because partial-
birth abortion, quote, ``is not good medicine.''
As we have discussed in prior debates in this House, the realities of
partial-birth abortion are truly horrible to contemplate, they are
truly horrible to discuss. The partial-birth abortion procedure is
performed from around 20 weeks to full term. It is well documented that
a baby is highly sensitive to pain stimuli during this period and even
earlier.
In his testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution in 1995,
Prof. Robert White, director of the division of neurosurgery and brain
research laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, stated,
``The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond,
is fully capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the partial-
birth abortion procedure, Dr. White concluded, ``Without question, all
of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to
such a surgical procedure.''
Abortion advocates have claimed that partial-birth abortion is rare
and only used in extreme circumstances. That has been a focus of the
debate that has been waged against the ban on partial-birth abortion.
But this claim is contradicted by the evidence.
Dr. Martin Haskell, an Ohio abortionist, told the American Medical
News that the vast majority of the partial-birth abortions he performs
are elective. He stated, and I quote, ``And I'll be quite frank: Most
of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular
case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80
percent are purely elective.''
Another abortionist, Dr. McMahon of California, used the partial-
birth abortion method through the entire 40 weeks of pregnancy. He sent
the Subcommittee on the Constitution a graph which showed the
percentage of ``flawed fetuses'' that he aborted using the partial-
birth abortion method. The graph shows that even at 26 weeks, half the
babies that Dr. McMahon aborted were perfectly healthy, and many of the
babies he described as ``flawed'' had conditions that were compatible
with long life, either with or without a disability. For example, Dr.
McMahon listed nine partial-birth abortions performed because the baby
had a cleft lip.
In September 1996, the Sunday Record, a newspaper in Bergen, NJ,
reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth
abortions are performed each year, 3 times the supposed national rate.
Moreover, doctors say only a minuscule amount are for medical reasons.
The article quotes an abortionist in New Jersey who describes his
partial-birth abortion patients as follows: ``Most are Medicaid
patients, and most are for elective, not medical reasons: people who
didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are
teenagers.''
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the second largest trade
association of abortion providers in the country, admitted that he
intentionally lied through his teeth when he told a Nightline camera
that partial-birth abortion is rare and performed only in extreme
medical circumstances.
The New York Times reported that Mr. Fitzsimmons ``says the procedure
is performed far more often than his colleagues,'' that is, other
advocates in the abortion rights community, ``have acknowledged, and on
healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.'' ``The abortion rights folks
know it,'' he said.
Ron Fitzsimmons' admission makes clear that the pro-abortion lobby
has engaged in a concerted and ongoing effort to deceive the Congress
and the American people about partial-birth abortion. They attempted to
hide the truth, they attempted to conceal the facts about this
procedure because they knew that the American people would be outraged
by the facts.
When President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 1995, he claimed that women needed partial-birth abortion
for their health and future fertility. That claim has been proven to be
completely false.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has said, ``In no way can I
twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described, you
know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before
the head is born, is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly
can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to partial-birth
abortion.''
In addition, a group of over 400 obstetricians and gynecologists and
maternal-fetal specialists have unequivocally stated, and I quote,
``Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a
woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The
procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the
pregnant woman's health and her fertility.''
The American Medical Association agrees with these doctors that
partial-birth abortion is not good medicine and supports banning the
procedure. I point out the American Medical Association is on record in
strong support of abortion rights, but even they recognize that this
procedure simply falls outside the pale.
However, the President has remained unmoved by these facts. He still
threatens to veto this bill. He has tried to change the subject by
supporting a purported ban on abortion in the seventh month of
pregnancy and later. Of course, unfortunately, the President's supposed
ban includes a broad health exception that would give the abortionist
unfettered discretion to decide when an abortion would be performed.
The proposal would allow the abortionist to perform postviability
abortions using any method, including partial-birth abortion, if the
abortionist certified in his or her best medical judgment that the
continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk
grievous injury to her physical health. Of course, the continuation of
any pregnancy does involve at least some degree of risk, however small.
Dr. Warren Hern, a third-trimester abortionist in Colorado, says of
this proposal, ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a
woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.''
Dr. Hern, using his best medical judgment, believes that any pregnancy
threatens a mother's life and risks grievous injury to her physical
health. He has said it unequivocally.
Dr. Hern is one of the leading experts on abortion in this country.
He has written a textbook on the subject. He is a recognized authority.
Now, if Dr. Hern signed a paper that asserted this belief, he would
satisfy the certification exception in the President's proposal.
Mr. Speaker, all of this demonstrates beyond any doubt that the
President's
[[Page H8651]]
proposal would not do anything to stop any abortion. Furthermore, the
President's proposal, which covers only postviability abortions, does
not even purport to affect the vast majority of partial-birth abortions
which take place in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, not in the
third trimester.
To sum it all up, the President's proposal is a sham. Mr. Speaker,
the President knows that partial-birth abortions are primarily
performed before the seventh month of pregnancy, in the fifth and sixth
months, on thousands of healthy babies of healthy mothers. His
purported ban would not protect one of these babies. We will not allow
the President to change the subject from the disturbing facts of
partial-birth abortion, as he has attempted to do. The President is
supporting an indefensible procedure that should not be allowed in a
civilized society.
I would ask my colleagues to look at partial-birth abortion. We have
described this procedure in this House before, but I ask my colleagues
to consider again what is involved when an abortionist performs the
procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
In the first step of this horrible procedure, the abortionist, guided
by ultrasound, grabs the live baby's leg with forceps. In the next
step, the baby's leg is pulled into the birth canal. The abortionist
then delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
{time} 1230
Of course, if the head came out, none of the rest of this could
happen. If the head came out and the abortionist took any action
against that child, that would undoubtedly be considered murder under
our law. Then, after the baby is delivered, except for the head, the
abortionist jabs scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then
opened to enlarge the hole.
I ask my colleagues to look at this critical stage of this horrible
procedure. This is what is going on when a partial-birth abortion is
performed. Then, in the final stage of partial-birth abortion, the
scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted into the hole
which has been created by the abortionist in the baby's head, and the
baby's brains are sucked out and the delivery is completed.
I ask the Members, how could jamming those scissors into the skull of
the baby, into the back of the baby's head, be possibly required for
the health of the mother? It simply makes no sense. The claims made by
the President and other supporters of partial-birth abortion about the
mother's health belong with all the other falsehoods that have been a
part of the campaign against this bill, and are advanced by people who
are desperate to escape from reality in their quest to defend the
indefensible. They cannot defend this, therefore they are attempting to
create a cloud of confusion and deceive the American people.
In this House we deal with many issues. We have hundreds of votes
here. The issues come and go. Most of the votes we will cast here will
soon be forgotten. Even those that seem rather important to us at the
moment will fade away. They will become a distant memory. But I believe
that today's vote on partial-birth abortion will be remembered. The
Members of this House will not be able to escape responsibility for the
votes they cast on this important issue. History will also remember the
President, whose veto had to be overridden in order to protect helpless
infants from this gruesome procedure.
I appeal to my colleagues, put aside all the myths that have been
generated in this debate in opposition to this bill, put aside all the
distortions, put aside all the misinformation that has been
disseminated. Look at the facts, consider the truth, and face up to the
reality of partial-birth abortion. This is it. This procedure cannot be
defended.
I would ask that my colleagues support the Senate amendments to the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and help bring this cruel, this brutal
practice to an end in America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill. This is the
fifth time that the House will vote on this issue. Unfortunately, it
will not be the last. As my colleagues know very well, the President
will veto this legislation because it does not contain an exception to
ensure the health of American women, so we will be back here again next
year.
We have repeatedly tried to offer an amendment to protect the health
of the mother to this bill on the floor of this House, and the
Republican leadership has consistently blocked us. We offered to sit
down and work with the Republican leadership to craft a health
exception that we could all accept. The Republican leadership refused.
The President will sign this legislation if it contains an exception
that would protect the health of the mother, but the Republican
leadership will not even give us a chance to put one in this
legislation.
The Republican leadership does not want to ban this procedure.
Unfortunately, it wants a political issue. Republicans would rather
debate this again and again and again, rather than send the President a
bill that he can sign into law.
Mr. Speaker, do not take my word for it. Let us listen to the words
of Ralph Reed. On May 21 he told the New York Times that this was, and
I quote, ``A winning, gold-plated issue going into the 1996 election.''
No pious words about the defenseless unborn, no hand-wringing over
moral decay, just a winning gold-plated issue. This, Mr. Speaker,
sadly, is pure politics, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, we will hear a great deal today about the AMA and its
endorsement of this bill. We will hear that changes made to the bill in
the Senate have improved it. Nonsense. The Senate amendments are window
dressing that provide cover to doctors while leaving women, frankly,
out in the cold. The AMA struck a very cynical bargain with the
Republican leadership to endorse this bill.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the AMA is not the final word on this issue.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, the
health professionals who actually deliver babies and care for women,
oppose this legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists oppose this legislation. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker,
that the AMA represents the doctors, not the women.
So while the changes made to this bill in the Senate may make it
marginally more difficult to throw doctors in jail when they are making
these very difficult decisions, they will do nothing, absolutely
nothing, to save the lives or preserve the health of women.
So we are left with the same bill that we have voted on four times
before, the same bill that puts the lives and health of women at risk,
the same bill that violates the Constitution of the United States of
America and tramples on the rights of American women. Women from around
the Nation testified before Congress that this procedure protected
their lives and their health, women like Tammy Watts, Claudia Addes,
Maureen Britel, women who would have been harmed by this bill.
These women, Mr. Speaker, desperately wanted to have children. They
had purchased baby clothes. They had picked out names. They did not
abort because of a headache. What an insult, Mr. Speaker. They did not
choose to abort because their prom dress did not fit. They chose to
become mothers, and only terminated their pregnancies because of tragic
circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, who in this body will stand in judgment of them? Which
of the Members will stand in the operating room and limit their
options? Who, at the agonizing moment, will decide? That is the
question? Who is going to make this decision, the Congress of the
United States, or the women and families of America?
The courts have been very clear on this question, and have
consistently found bills of this type to be unconstitutional. Lawsuits
have been filed in 10 States challenging State statutes similar to the
bill before us. In 10 States courts have ruled that the laws were
unconstitutional, struck them down, limited their scope, or enjoined
them.
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this issue in March, the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] assured us that this
bill was constitutional and consistent with Roe. Since then this ban
has been struck down, changed, or enjoined on constitutional grounds in
10 States, 10 States. States
[[Page H8652]]
have moved ahead, passed these bans, and they have been struck down
again and again. The courts have clearly spoken. This bill violates a
woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.
Unfortunately, we know that the antichoice majority will not let a
little thing like the Constitution of the United States of America
stand in the way of their abortion ban. Mr. Speaker, the anti-choice
Republican leadership has been waging war on the reproductive rights of
American women since taking over this House in 1994.
In the last Congress alone, the leadership voted to limit abortion
rights more than 50 separate times, a new record. It is clear that this
leadership wants to ban every abortion, that is the ultimate goal,
procedure by procedure, trimester by trimester. They want to rollback
Roe versus Wade and push American women back into the back alley.
Mr. Speaker, we have a different vision. We will continue to fight to
ensure that women are able to obtain safe, legal abortions, and we will
work as hard as we can to reduce the number of abortions by providing
women with greater access to family planning and contraceptives. We
will work to empower women to make responsible choices about their own
bodies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have chosen to make our
bodies their battleground, and they will not succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague,
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], the distinguished ranking
member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we focus on what
this bill does. It prohibits one procedure. Nothing in the bill affects
the decision to have any abortion. If this bill passes, women who
decide to have a legal abortion will still be able to get that
abortion. Some will just have to be subjected to other procedures that
their doctors conclude will be more likely to kill, maim, or sterilize
them.
We have heard, and I assume we will hear more, graphic descriptions
of this procedure, but the fact is that other alternatives which will
be used have not been described graphically today, and probably will
not be. So the point of this bill is not to reduce the number of
abortions. In fact, the point of today's vote will not even be to enact
a bill, because this version is clearly unconstitutional, so much so
that similar laws in the States have been thrown out at least nine
times this year alone.
Mr. Speaker, though abortion has always been a controversial issue,
the fact is that since 1973 the Supreme Court decision Roe versus Wade
decreed that abortion will be legal in this country. Roe, which is
still the law of the land, held that a woman's right to have an
abortion before fetal viability is a fundamental right.
The State may, however, prohibit post-viability abortions, but only
if there is no substantial threat to the life or health of the mother.
In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992, the court reaffirmed this
holding. Mr. Speaker, other Supreme Court decisions have added to this
concept by prohibiting regulations that jeopardize a woman's health by
chilling the physician's exercise of discretion in determining which
abortion method may be used.
So interference with a physician's exercise of discretion jeopardizes
the woman's health, and is therefore as dangerous as it is
unconstitutional. Although the health of the mother must remain a
primary interest in order to pass constitutional muster, today's bill
includes no provision which allows an exception from the ban in those
cases where the other methods pose serious health risks to the mother.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will not prevent a single abortion.
It simply prevents one procedure which, in certain circumstances, is
the safest procedure available.
Mr. Speaker, many of us support a total prohibition on post-viability
abortions as long as it is consistent with Roe versus Wade, by
protecting the health of the mother. But this bill only prohibits one
procedure, not the decision to undergo the abortion. Therefore, if this
bill passes, the only effect, as I have said, will be that some people
will have to undergo a more dangerous procedure which will increase
their chances of them being killed, maimed, or sterilized.
{time} 1245
I hope that my colleagues will work to prevent this result.
This debate should not be about politics, it should be about the
woman who may need this procedure to protect her health and
reproductive ability but may not have access to it because Congress
decided that it should play doctor and politics. Let us put women's
health first and defeat the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this partial-
birth abortion ban.
Mr. Speaker, this has little to do with Roe versus Wade, little to do
with politics, little to do with the majority versus the minority, and
everything to do with banning a procedure that is, in effect, legalized
infanticide. Let there be no doubt about what we are trying to do in
this Chamber today.
Mr. Speaker, 295 of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and men
and women, some pro-choice and pro-life, have come together not to get
into the rhetoric and the hyperbole but to try to do something to cut
down on the number of abortions that take place in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the AMA has now endorsed this bill that I strongly
support. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who has taken on big
tobacco and fought for little children, has said this about partial-
birth abortion: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary
to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary,
this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
Mr. Speaker, I think that states pretty much the case, and 64
Republicans and Democrats out of 100 in the Senate have agreed. We need
to talk, Mr. Speaker, about ways to eliminate the large number of
abortions in this country, to reduce the number of abortions in this
country. We need to do it by passing this bill. We need to do it by
talking about funding birth control methods.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard that we have voted already four times on
this act. We should vote 40 times or 400 times to pass what is morally,
ethically, and, I think, soundly politically the right thing to do. Let
us pass this bill today and put it on the President's desk.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last spring a woman came to my office with
her infant son whom she loved, and you could tell the love was obvious.
Tragically for this woman, this was not the first pregnancy she had
had. She had lost a previous baby months along in the cycle through no
fault of her own, and she had used this procedure after consulting with
her husband, her family, and her doctor.
Mr. Speaker, not very many women are forced to use this procedure. In
1992, the most recent year for which we have statistics, only 0.4
percent of all abortions take place after 26 weeks when this procedure
becomes necessary. Like the women in my office, like the women that my
colleagues have talked about today, every single one of these women who
are facing these late-term procedures are facing threats to their life
or threats to their health or they are carrying a fetus with severe
abnormalities that will not survive. That is why the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this legislation even now,
and that is why this piece of legislation is unconstitutional and
should not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, the terms are so vague that like the 10 States that have
struck down the State legislation, this legislation will not be held
constitutional and should not be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question as a new Member of Congress. Why are
we voting on this piece of legislation again and again and again and
again and again? It is all we have talked about in my first 10 months
of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear. In the 1998 elections, the
Republicans think they can saddle people with this. The women of
America are not going to accept it. The women of America need to make
this decision in consultation
[[Page H8653]]
with their families and their doctors. Let us move beyond this to
rational family planning so we can avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
1122, the partial-birth abortion ban. I have spoken out repeatedly in
support of this ban, and I will continue to do so however long it takes
to get the necessary two-thirds majority in both the House and the
Senate so that we can override the President's veto.
It was in 1993 when I was still practicing medicine when I first read
about this procedure. It was published in the American Medical News. I
had seen all of my patients for the day, I was sitting down at my desk,
and, frankly, I was shocked and amazed that in a country that is
supposed to be founded on the principle that we are endowed by our
Creator with the right to life, that a procedure this barbaric would be
legal and, furthermore, that some people who purport to be legal
scholars would argue that it is somehow protected in our Constitution.
It is nowhere mentioned anywhere in our Constitution.
I want to address two very important issues; No. 1, these so-called
tragic circumstances. In that original article that appeared in the AMA
News, the originators of this procedure admitted that 85 percent of the
time it was on perfectly healthy fetuses and in the other 15 percent,
the majority of them were cleft lip and cleft palate.
How many millions of Americans in this country who have a loved one
with cleft lip or cleft palate would like to know that this kind of
barbaric procedure could be done on a baby for a deformity as simple as
that? It is absolutely tragic to me to think that somebody would make
that kind of an argument.
Mr. Speaker, I am not finished. I also want to discuss this other so-
called health exception. They had a health exception in California
prior to Roe versus Wade, and they did thousands and thousands of
abortions every year because we all know, I am a doctor, any doctor can
say it is needed for health. That is a loophole you can drive a truck
through.
This procedure is barbaric. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote
in support of the bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the doctor, he is also a
Congressman and there is a constitutional basis for this measure that
we have. Look at the fifth amendment, then read the U.S. Supreme Court
decision.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are physicians and
people of many walks of life in this House, but though we come with
different experiences, we do not stand for the thousands upon thousands
of physicians across the Nation who deal with patients, in this
instance women, women who are expecting and looking forward to the
blessed day. As we debate this issue, none of us can stand in their
shoes.
I am saddened that we now come for the fourth time to deny the
opportunity for a mother who wants to bear children again to be
protected and to have her health protected in a private and personal
and religious and family decision.
Take the story of Eileen Sullivan, someone who brought tears to my
eyes as she testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary. I
ask you to stand in her shoes. Eileen Sullivan from Los Angeles, a
Catholic with 10 brothers and sisters, Eileen had long awaited her
first child. She and her husband were devastated at 26 weeks of
pregnancy that testing revealed overwhelming fetal abnormalities in
their son, including an improperly formed brain, a malformed heart, no
lungs, and nonfunctioning liver.
Mr. Speaker, did she rush to have an abortion? No, she did not. She
took test after test after test. And I imagine, as a devout Catholic,
she prayed and prayed and prayed, and yet the prognosis was: ``Eileen,
if you and your husband want a healthy child, we must terminate this
pregnancy.'' In the law of the land, she had the right to choose. She
did not voluntarily do so.
So Eileen had a procedure, a medical procedure for which, under this
bill, the physician would be held liable and accountable, upon which
the family decision, the prayer that was made that helped them to
decide this.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say this is a bad piece of legislation. It is
difficult to decide, but I would ask that my colleagues vote on behalf
of Eileen. Vote against this legislation and give life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1122. The issue
raised by this legislation is a very difficult and emotional issue for
all of us here in this body. It is one that I, and I am sure many of my
colleagues, have given a great deal of consideration. There is no
question, however, but that I must oppose this legislation.
H.R. 1122 raises many concerns, but two in particular are worthy of
discussion. First, as currently written this legislation is
unconstitutional. Second, the legislation makes no provision for the
protection of a mother's health.
Last May, the Senate passed H.R. 1122, the Late-Term Abortion Ban Act
only making three minor amendments to the House-passed version. We are
asked today to agree to these amendments. The Senate amendments are
purely cosmetic, however, and do nothing to answer my concerns. While
these amendments provide the physician additional protections, they do
nothing to extend protection to the health and well-bring of American
women and their families. As currently written, H.R. 1122 provides no
exception to protect a woman's health and makes no distinction between
abortions before and after fetal viability.
As a Member of Congress, I have, sworn to uphold the U.S.
Constitution. H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional and 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 versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that women had a privacy
interest in electing to have an abortion. This right is qualified,
however, and so most be balanced against the State's interest in
protecting prenatal life. The 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.''
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 on this issue, and so is
unconstitutional.
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 his or her patient.
It is a tragic fact that sometimes a mother's health is threatened by
the abnormalities of the fetus that she is carrying. She 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.
Proponents of the partial birth abortion ban maintain that this
procedure is never the only option to save the life or preserve the
health of a woman. ACOG, The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists stated that while this procedure may not be the only
option to save a woman's life and health, it may be the best option.
[[Page H8654]]
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 child is
their own. The power and authority to determine to whom the child
belongs rests with King Solomon, but he gave the mothers the power to
choose the child's fate and from this decision the life of the child
was saved.
Many of my colleagues have worked hard to amend the ban so that it
would provide an exception to protect the mother when the continuation
of the pregnancy would put her physical health at risk. This was
rejected. Without such a provision, I am unable to support this ban.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
1122.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, ``We the People of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.''
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a whole lot about the American College of
Surgeons and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
That is the same organization that refused to suggest that women who
are pregnant get an HIV test, knowing that in fact it could prevent HIV
infection from the baby, the same organization that ruled we should do
that after this Congress stood up and morally said they should do it.
So, they do not lead on what is right and wrong. They follow. They have
already proven that they follow.
We have a choice. The child just described by the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], there was a choice there. There was a choice
that the doctor could end a life early through a very gruesome and
horrible procedure, or there was a choice that a baby could have been
delivered and died in its mother's and father's arms. We do have
choices. There is no question about it.
Mr. Speaker, who is looking out for the infant girls that consume 85
percent of the elective abortions used on this procedure?
The thing that saddens me most about this debate, and I am tired of
the debate as well, is we will not be truthful about what we are
talking about. The truth is that this is never needed. The truth is
that we have a lot of people who believe, and are respected in their
belief, that women ought to be able to abort any baby any time for any
reason.
The unfortunate thing is that there is not the integrity in this
House, or the honesty, to stand up and say that is what I believe. So,
therefore, we use disinformation, deceit, and untruth to cover what the
real facts of the issues are.
So, Mr. Speaker, when, in fact, Members decide on whether or not we
ought to be involved in banning a procedure that the vast majority of
physicians in this country know is not needed to accomplish the
purpose, they should ask themselves whether we are leaders or we are
followers.
I do stand in the shoes every weekend and defend women and their
rights and care for them and their problem pregnancies. I do know what
I am talking about. It is a moral, ethical issue. It has nothing to do
with the practice of medicine.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer] said he is for this bill because he wants to reduce the
number of abortions. This bill, of course, does not by any means reduce
the number of abortions. It does say doctors cannot do one procedure
versus another. This deals with one procedure. It does not purport even
to ban abortion under any circumstances but simply says, do not use
this procedure.
Now, when we ban one procedure and allow the others, we make this one
mistake. On this bill, the majority has consistently refused to accept
an amendment which says this procedure can be used if the doctor
believes it is necessary to avoid grievous physical harm to the mother.
So I ask my colleagues to understand, this is a bill which says that
even if there will be grievous physical harm in the opinion of the
doctor, he has to use a different procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I am told the chairman of the committee, who is here,
has said: Well, but we cannot just restrict it. Once we say ``health,''
the Court will automatically say ``mental health.'' That is simply,
wholly untrue.
Mr. Speaker, when the Court interpreted health to mean mental health,
they were not talking about a statute which specifically modified
health with the word ``physical.'' The Court has held that there is a
general constitutional right of the health of the mother to be taken
into account, and they have defined that as mental or physical.
{time} 1300
If that governs, the whole bill is out. Understand, if that
interpretation governs, then all health, all abortions are out. We are
apparently believing here, the majority, that we cannot ban this
particular procedure and make an exception. What we are saying is, OK,
we will make an exception to the exception and if grievous physical
harm will come, then it will be allowed. No, there is no argument that
the court would not recognize that. The court has defined health when
it was unmodified. There is not a single decision that suggests that
the court will look at the words ``grievous physical health
consequences'' and interpret those away. So either we must believe that
the court will impose health, including mental health, across the
board, or we must recognize the validity of this.
Without the amendments we have offered, by refusing to let us offer
an amendment, the majority says not simply that we will ban the
procedure but we will ban it even to avoid, if it is necessary, to
avoid grievous physical health consequences. That is what this is
about, whether or not grievous physical health consequences should be
allowed into the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it,
abortion is violence against children. The partial-birth method is an
extraordinarily heinous manifestation of this violence. Today those who
kill babies by jamming scissors in a baby's skull followed by insertion
of a hose to suck out their brains have an unfettered license to kill.
Nurse Brenda Pratt Schaffer, who worked with the infamous Dr.
Haskell, described the end of the life of one 6-month-old in this way,
and I quote:
``The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping
together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was
still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted
them into the back of the baby's head. Then he stuck the high-powered
suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost
threw up,'' she said, ``as I watched him do these things.''
To mitigate this cruelty, Mr. Speaker, this cruelty to children, some
States, about 15, have already enacted partial-birth bans into law but
litigation has mostly precluded enforcement. Other States are
considering such a ban. And in Florida, Missouri, and my own State of
New Jersey, where at least 1,500 of these partial-birth abortions are
done each year in northern New Jersey alone, the bills were sadly
vetoed by our Governors.
Mr. Speaker, the United States needs a national law to ban this
violence against kids. Today we can do that. Today we can revoke the
license to kill babies in this fashion and protect at least some kids
from this kiddie holocaust called abortion on demand. If the President
vetoes the bill, he and he alone empowers abortionists to murder kids
in this hideous way.
Let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the pro-abortion
movement has been savvy in masking the violence and cruelty to baby
girls and boys killed by abortion in general and this method in
particular. But they have been exposed once again and by one of their
own.
Members please recall that Ron Fitzsimmons, the ex-director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has publicly confessed that
he ``lied through (his) teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer,
according to the New York Times, that partial-birth abortion was ``used
rarely and only on women whose lives
[[Page H8655]]
were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.''
According to the AMA News and the New York Times, Mr. Fitzsimmons now
says that his party line defense of this method of abortion was a
deliberate lie--and that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure
is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks
or more along.
Most in the media believed and amplified as true the falsehoods and
lies put out by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, the ACLU, NARAL, the National Family Planning and
Reproductive Health Association, NOW, the National Republican Coalition
for Choice, People for the American Way, Population Action
International, Zero Population Growth [ZPG], to name a few signers of
an October 25, 1995 letter to Members of Congress which stated:
This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer
than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the case of
wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family
learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a
medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or
health.
These groups lied to us. And it's not the first time these groups
have lied to us. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and a
founder of NARAL has said lying and junk science are commonplace in the
pro-abortion movement. It is the way they sell abortion to a gullible
public. Dr. Nathanson said that in the early days, they absolutely lied
about the number of illegal abortions; today, he says they lie about
the link of abortion and breast cancer--there is a link; and they lie
about the safety of abortion. And of course, the big lie on partial-
birth abortion has been exposed. The procedure is not rare--it is
common--and it is used with devastating consequences on perfectly
healthy mothers and babies.
In the debate on partial-birth abortion last year, remember the big
lie about how anesthesia kills the baby? That falsehood was exposed by
the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig
Ellison, who explained before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
I believe this . . . to be entirely inaccurate. I am deeply
concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity given to
Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay
necessary and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally
unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation
regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus. . . .
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, of those 15 States that have passed the law
the gentleman advocates, 9 have been found to be unconstitutional.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, we can learn from our elders. Our first
citizens, native Americans, have a phrase that I think bears repeating
in this place: Do not judge a person until you have walked a mile in
their moccasins.
So I say to the Members who are pushing this ban, they are probably
very sincere but most of them do not know what they are talking about.
They do not know the agony of a late failed pregnancy. They do not know
in what circumstances a physician may have to counsel a family in order
to protect the health of a particular woman. They do not know about the
choices families must make when they have to choose between a woman's
health and a badly damaged fetus.
So, my colleagues, I say it is time we step into the shoes of those
women, of those families, of those doctors. It is time politicians stop
making decisions that are best made by families, by women, by
physicians. It is time to get the Government off the backs of our
citizens. It is time to listen to the 38,000 Members of the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because they do know and they are
opposed to this ban. I would urge my colleagues to join those doctors
and oppose this ban.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
has 7 minutes remaining.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to oppose this bill for two very simple
reasons. It endangers the life and health of American women. It is
blatantly unconstitutional. The antichoice majority has trumpeted the
AMA's support for this bill, but the changes made to this bill to win
the AMA's support do nothing, nothing to protect the lives and health
of American women.
Again, I want to remind my colleagues, whether one believes that the
Constitution should say more or should say less, the point is that 10
courts have struck down, even, or changed abortion bans like the one
before us because they violate Roe versus Wade. Ten courts have spoken.
Why will not Congress listen? This bill tramples on Roe versus Wade and
is a direct assault on the constitutionally protected right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. As a mother, as a new grandmother,
I respect and celebrate life with every ounce of my soul, with every
ounce of my being. I find it very offensive when year after year my
colleagues and I will go to the leadership, will go to the Committee on
Rules and say, let us craft a bill that the President will sign. Let us
craft a bill that will focus on postviability abortions, will disallow
postviability abortions except as they protect the health and the life
of the mother.
But unfortunately, the majority again, time and again, will not work
with us to help craft this bill. So year after year this procedure,
which they say they abhor, continues when we want to make sure that
postviability we are eliminating a procedure except to save the life
and health of the mother, which is consistent with Roe versus Wade.
I would ask my colleagues again, work with us. Let us craft the
language that the President can sign, and we can get this enacted into
law, that we feel is reasonable and that will protect a woman's life
and health.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership, not just today but year after year, on this subject matter.
I am hoping somebody raises the fact that the AMA has switched its
position, because I have got the letter they sent Newt Gingrich on the
same day they switched their position, detailing what they wanted for
the switch.
That AMA, that is the American Medical Association. And what did they
want? Well, they wanted some compromises. They detailed a plan to stall
or minimize any cuts that might come from the physicians' incomes. Let
us not wax lyrical about the AMA is now on the side of the
conservatives in this country. They just sold out, very elementary,
dear Watson, it happens in the Congress and in the body politic with
great frequency.
Once again, we all know that the issue is about the health of the
mother. The opponents keep trying to hope they can override our
resistance. The Supreme Court still states what the law of the land is,
and for all the doctors on the Republican side that do not know the
fifth amendment is severely connected to this subject matter, believe
me, it is.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority
leader.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised an issue
about proposed amendments dealing with the mother's health. The problem
with the amendment that the President has proposed which would deal
with the mother's health is that it would first not deal with the vast
majority of partial-birth abortions at all, because it is restricted on
its face to postviability abortions and most partial-birth abortions
occur before viability. Furthermore, the President's proposal would
give unfettered discretion to the abortionist to decide.
Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would rather the
gentleman speak on his time since I have limited time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time and for her extraordinary leadership on a very hard bill to manage
and carry, but one that has to be carried.
I want to make three points. One goes to the futility of this bill
based on
[[Page H8656]]
its unconstitutionality. The other goes to who gets protected. The
final goes to the intolerable trade-off that this bill forces and that
cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Why are we here on a bill
that is unconstitutional on its face?
We have not had to deal with the exception for health of the mother
in the Hyde amendment and other matters because we had not focused on
postviability. But the Supreme Court has been clear. I want to quote
the language, that a bill is unconstitutional if it ``fails to require
that maternal health be the physician's paramount concern.'' That is
where the Catholic church has always been. That is where all of us have
always been, if ever there is that kind of tragic decision to be made.
We must face that now as we have not had to because we are focusing
postviability.
Why are we here on a bill that protects physicians and not women? The
doctors got language that satisfied them and jumped ship. I thought
they were supposed to have a paramount duty to their patients as well.
They better watch out, because there is language in this amendment
that I think leaves them in jeopardy as well. It must be found that no
other medical procedure would suffice. I can imagine that going before
committee of doctors in the hospital, particularly when we consider how
reluctant physicians are ever to use this procedure.
And finally, this forces the intolerable tradeoff of mother for
fetus. It comes down on the side of fetus. It requires sacrifice of the
mother because whatever the state of her health, it cannot be taken
into consideration. For these reasons, I do not see how in good faith
this body can pass this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, again I just want to reach out to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde], and ask them to work with us to craft a bill that would
protect the health and the life of the mother. We could have had a bill
today. This was first introduced in 1995.
{time} 1315
It was vetoed by the President. It came back five times. We could
have a bill today.
And I want the gentleman to know that I respect the passion of the
opponents on this issue just as I hope the gentleman would respect the
passion of women such as myself who have given birth to beautiful
children, who is now a grandmother and respects life and celebrates
life. I wish the gentleman would have more respect for those women like
Claudia Addes, who suffered the pain of losing a child when she
desperately wanted a child.
I am saying to the gentleman, with respect, let us sit down and work
out a bill that would protect those women, protect all the women who
may face this very difficult tragedy in their lives at some future
time. I hope no one close to the gentleman ever faces that decision.
Let us work together, let us craft the bill, protect the women and
the families who have to face these difficult decisions and, Mr.
Speaker, let us not put a doctor in the terrible position of making
this decision that he does not or she does not feel is the correct
decision.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to answer the
gentlewoman from New York. She is a wonderful person. She is a sincere
person. Her motives are most noble, and I wish everyone on her side
would understand this is not politics. This is a tough issue for
anybody.
We happen to believe in protecting the unborn child. We happen to
think the health of the mother does not equal the life of the unborn.
That is not a good trade-off. That is where we get stuck.
We hear from doctors, like Dr. Hearn, who wrote the book on abortion,
that if a woman is pregnant she is in a life-threatening condition. Do
we want him to make the decision on what is grievous physical health?
We have problems, but it is not that we are not willing to negotiate on
them.
Mr. Speaker, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. The
abortion license was an invention by seven Supreme Court justices. But
cruel and unusual punishment is in the Constitution. And by any
definition, partial-birth abortion is cruel and unusual punishment,
punishment for the capital crime of being unloved and unwanted.
Every abortion happens over somebody's dead body. We hear a lot about
the woman, and we should, but we do not hear a scintilla about the
little girl baby, the little boy baby whose heart is beating wildly and
who is flailing, their having been almost delivered and who want to
live. We do not hear about them.
Every abortion results in a violent death, whether the abortionist
uses dilatation and curettage or the chemical warfare of saline
injection which scalds the little baby to death that is called salting
out, or RU-486 chemical warfare against the little baby, or the
infamous suction machine, abortion means violent death in the womb. But
partial-birth abortion adds a gruesome dimension to this cruelty by
reaching the level, or should I say the depth, of infanticide.
A word about truth. America is committed to truth. ``We hold these
truths,'' that great Virginian Jefferson wrote. ``The truth will make
you free,'' we tell our children. How many times have we sung the
majestic words from the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic,'' ``His truth
goes marching on?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the whole case for partial-birth
abortion is based on deception and untruth.
And that is not surprising, because the history of the pro-abortion
rights movement is replete with one falsehood after another. And I
frankly get tired of being lied to.
Bernard Nathanson, a doctor who ran the biggest abortion clinic in
America, wrote a book called ``Aborting America.'' And he said ``I
cannot escape the notion that I have presided over 60,000 abortions.''
But concerning the number of back-alley abortions, he said we made the
figures up. He is a founder of the National Abortion Rights Action
League. He and a man named Lawrence Lader concocted figures because
they sounded good about back alley abortions as a justification for
their organization dedicated to legalizing abortion. ``We made up the
figure 10,000 because it had a nice round sound to it.'' That was a
lie.
Roe versus Wade was a lie. Norma Jean Corvey, who was Jane Roe, said
she never was raped. The case was presented as a rape situation to make
it more poignant. But later, when she became pro-life, she admitted
that she lied; that she was not raped. So the foundation of Roe versus
Wade was a lie.
Then we have partial-birth abortions, where Planned Parenthood told
us that anesthesia kills the little baby. The baby does not feel pain.
The mother is anesthetized. The anesthesiologists came in and went
ballistic. They said enough anesthesia to kill the little baby would
kill the mother. ``We do not want people to shy away from taking
anesthesia'' they told us. That is a lie.
Then, of course, we have the famous Ron Fitzsimmons, executive
director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who in an
article in the American Medical News said on the night in November
1995, when he was on ``Nightline,'' he ``lied through his teeth.'' He
lied through his teeth about how many of these abortions are done and
at what time in the pregnancy. So deception. Lies. I get tired of it.
Now, we are not stopping abortion, as the gentlewoman points out, but
we are stopping a loathsome, grisly by-product of the mindset that
treats people as things and as objects. We are saying halt this cruelty
now and not tomorrow.
I want to address the President, if I may presume to do so. On June
12 in 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate, Ronald Reagan challenged General
Secretary Gorbachev. He said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
And as a result of that wall finally coming down, a new birth of
freedom, that wonderful phrase, suddenly appeared for millions of
people.
[[Page H8657]]
Well, there is another challenge that I would like to make, and I do
not presume to be Ronald Reagan nor do I ascribe the President as Mr.
Gorbachev, but the challenge is as noteworthy as the Berlin Wall, and
that is because it means life and death to thousands of endangered tiny
defenseless humans, sign this bill, Mr. President, then the prayers of
millions and even the inaudible prayers of the little yet-to-be-born
will be answered.
Mr. President, stand between them and a gruesome death. Cruel and
unusual punishment. We can provide them with life and with hope, and I
ask the President if he has not been lied to enough by these people who
are so fearful that the abortion license will be encapsulated a little
bit more than it is, be a little less free, a little less wanton. They
are so fearful of that, they will not give an inch.
This procedure is inhuman. Animals of the forest would not treat
their young this way. So all we say is we have been lied to enough.
This does not impair abortions. They will go on merrily every day. We
will get to them.
Mr. President, sign this bill.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this
legislation which bans partial-birth abortions. Over the past year, the
House expressed its opposition to this procedure: not once, not twice,
but three times. The decision before us today is simple: do we ban this
procedure which is incredibly inhumane and incredibly brutal? I join
the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the
American Medical Association, and many others in saying no to partial-
birth abortions.
According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers, and other sources, it is estimated
that partial-birth abortions are performed about 5,000 times. Do we
really want to sanction the termination, no the killing of 5,000
babies? Have we given up on these unborn babies before they have a
chance to live? Sadly, the majority of partial-birth abortions are
performed in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of
healthy mothers. What has happened to our sense of morality and our
sensibility?
The arguments that this bill does not take into account the health of
the mother are not valid. This bill is narrowly crafted to outlaw only
partial-birth abortions; the bill still leaves in place other
legitimate medical procedures to protect the life and health of the
mother. In September 1996, the former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
issued a statement that ``partial-birth abortions is never medically
necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the
contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
Mr. Speaker, the babies involved in this procedure are alive and
experience great pain when they are subjected to partial-birth
abortions. As a civilized society, we should outlaw this medical
procedure; we should not be engaged in sanctioning the killing of human
beings; once again, we should say no to partial-birth abortions. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting the ban on partial-birth
abortions.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not favor late-term abortions and feel
none should be allowed, whatever the procedure, unless necessary to
preserve the life of the mother or prevent serious consequences to her
health. The bill we are considering today, like a similar bill I
opposed last year, not only fails to address all late-term abortions,
but it does not protect a woman from the severe health consequences
which may be associated with tragic pregnancies.
For the majority, the repeated consideration of this legislation is
not about reducing abortions in America. If that were the goal, the
majority would allow for the consideration of a bill which protects a
mother's health, as required by the Supreme Court in post-viability
abortions, and a bill would be passed by this House and signed into law
by the President.
We are asking the majority to be sensitive to and protective of the
health of mothers who find themselves in medically and personally
tragic situations. I am voting against moving the previous question so
that we can consider the Hoyer amendment and ban all late-term
abortions while ensuring the protection of a woman's life and health.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R.
1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. H.R. 1122 has been amended in
an effort to clarify the bill's intentions. Yet, H.R. 1122 fails to
provide women with the basic protections established in Roe versus
Wade.
The new definition of what constitutes a partial-birth abortion is
vague, convoluted, and confusing. What is a partial delivery of
substantial proportion, for example? Doctors and lawyers will not have
a clear idea of what is being banned.
H.R. 1122 gives any accused physician the right to have his or her
conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial
begins. The provision does not give the State Medical Boards the
authority to issue advisory positions. The provision only allows the
State Medical Boards to comment on the doctor's conduct with respect to
the necessity of saving the life of the woman. They cannot comment on
whether or not the procedure meets the definition of a partial-birth
abortion. Possible conflict of interest in the makeup of the medical
boards is not addressed. The provision falsely implies that doctors
have some type of protection; they do not. Doctors still have to go
through criminal proceedings.
In Roe versus Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a woman's
constitutional right of choice. Roe also established that this right is
limited after viability, at which point States may ban abortion as long
as an exception is provided for cases in which the woman's life or
health is at risk. H.R. 1122 fails to make the distinction between pre-
and post-viability abortion.
Forty States and the District of Columbia ban post-viability
abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck a balance between a
woman's right to choose and the protection of potential life. H.R. 1122
unfortunately does not clarify the distinction.
Intervening in a lawful medical decision is inappropriate, ill
advised, and dangerous. It is always in order to question laws and
write legislation which may alter existing statutes. H.R. 1122 does not
address what is now lawful in a manner which meets the necessary
criteria for changing the law.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1122 as
amended by the Senate.
This bill would help to fight what Pope John Paul recently called an
abominable crime and the shame of humanity--the crime of abortion.
On the Pope's recent visit to Brazil he asked, ``How many times did
we hear Mother Teresa's lips proclaim the priceless value of life from
the moment of conception in the maternal womb? Death has silenced those
lips, but Mother Teresa's message in favor of life continues to be more
vigilant and convincing than ever.''
It is my belief that our creator will not hold this Nation guiltless
for our contribution to the killing of the unborn. Indeed, the Bible
tells us in Proverbs that God hates ``hands that shed innocent blood.''
Certainly, there can be none more innocent than the unborn.
And this procedure is particularly horrific. It has been called the
closest thing to infanticide. I will not go into the gruesome details
of this procedure but I believe that it is telling that many who
support abortion on demand, do not support this procedure.
There are few moral questions that come before this body that are
more clear-cut and simple than this one. The question we will vote on
today is whether your support a method of abortion that involves
partially delivering a baby and then killing it, or do you support
allowing a newborn to live. Pure and simple.
I am proud to stand today with those who support life. I urge my
colleagues to honor the words of the Pope and Mother Teresa by
supporting life--and to vote in favor of the ban on partial birth
abortions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The amendments that
we are considering here today do not make this bill acceptable. They do
not provide the critical exception necessary to protect women in tragic
circumstances from serious harm to their health.
This bill is still unconstitutional, and is still in direct violation
of the fundamental rights described in Roe versus Wade.
This bill would still criminalize doctors for using their best
medical judgment to protect the lives and health of women.
This bill would still give a father who abused or abandoned a woman
the right to sue her if she and her doctor determine that she needs to
have this procedure. Not only does this bill infringe on the
constitutional right to choose, but it rewards abusive fathers.
This bill is still fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the
principle that politicians, not doctors, ought to make medical
judgments about what procedures are appropriate.
I would urge every pro-choice Member who may be inclined to vote for
this bill to carefully consider exactly why they are pro-choice. If you
are pro-choice because you believe it is a woman's decision, not the
government's, about whether or not to have an abortion, then I urge you
to vote against this bill. If you believe that sometimes abortions are
necessary to protect the health of a woman, then you ought to vote
against this bill. If you believe that doctors should not be denied the
option of using a medical procedure that they deem appropriate, then
you must reject this bill. If you believe in the fundamental principles
of Roe
[[Page H8658]]
versus Wade, then you must not support this bill which severely
restricts a woman's right to choose to have an abortion of a fetus that
cannot live outside of the womb.
This bill, unfortunately, is not about protecting women's lives.
Instead, it is the result of a multimillion dollar campaign aimed at
fundamentally limiting women's rights. If this bill becomes law, it
will most certainly be challenged in the courts and the result may be a
reexamination of Roe versus Wade. So I hope my pro-choice colleagues,
who may be inclined to vote for this bill, realize that they are in
effect asking the Supreme Court to reexamine the issues resolved by Roe
versus Wade.
Make no mistake, this bill is not about one particular procedure. It
is about the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to defend a woman's
right to choose, and to reject this dangerous bill.
And let me close by quoting a letter from a woman in New York City
who faced a tragic situation involving a fetus with a severely deformed
heart, and who would have been affected by this legislation had it
already become law. She writes,
You must hear our voices before you vote on this misguided
bill, as well as the voices of other mothers and fathers who
weep over their empty cribs. We are not bad people. We are
extremely unfortunate, suffering families trying to cope with
personal tragedies. Please don't deepen our wounds by taking
away our choices. Please vote against H.R. 1122.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is the fifth time that the House will vote on this issue.
Unfortunately, it won't be the last. As my colleagues know, the
President will veto this legislation because it does not contain an
exception to ensure the health of American women. So we will be back
here again next year.
We have repeatedly tried to offer a health amendment to the bill on
the floor of this House--and the Republican leadership has consistently
blocked us. We offered to sit down and work with the Republican
leadership to craft a health exception that we could all accept. The
Republican leadership refused. The President will sign this legislation
if it contains a health exception--but the Republican leadership won't
even give us the chance to put one in.
The GOP leadership doesn't want to ban this procedure--it wants a
political issue. Republicans would rather debate this again and again
and again rather than send the President a bill that he can sign into
law. But don't take my word for it--take Ralph Reed's. On May 21, he
told the New York Times that this was a quote, winning gold-plated
issue going into the 1996 elections.
No pious words about the defenseless unborn, no handwringing over
moral decay. Just a winning gold-plated issue. This is pure politics,
plain and simple.
My colleagues, you will hear a great deal today about the AMA and its
endorsement of this bill. You will hear that changes made to this bill
in the Senate have improved it.
Nonsense. The Senate amendments are window dressing that provide
cover to doctors while leaving women out in the cold. Sadly, the AMA
struck a very cynical bargain with the Republican leadership to endorse
this bill.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the AMA is not the final word on this issue.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, the
health professionals who actually deliver babies and care for women,
oppose this legislation. And let's not forget, my colleagues, that the
AMA represents doctors--not women. So while the changes made to this
bill in the Senate may make it marginally more difficult to throw
doctors in jail, they will do nothing--absolutely nothing--to save the
lives or preserve the health of pregnant women.
So, we are left with the same bill that we have voted on four times
before. The same bill that puts the lives and health of women at risk.
The same bill that violates the Constitution and tramples on the rights
of American women.
Women from around the Nation testified before Congress that this
procedure protected their lives and health. Women like Tammy Watts,
Claudia Addes, and Maureen Britel. Women who would have been harmed by
this bill.
These women desperately wanted to have children. They had purchased
baby clothes. They had picked out names. They did not abort because of
a headache. They did not choose to abort because their prom dress did
not fit. They chose to become mothers and only terminated their
pregnancies because of tragic circumstances.
Who in this body will stand in judgment of them? Which of you will
stand in the operating room and limit their options? Who, at the
agonizing moment, will decide--the Congress of the United States or the
women and families of America?
The courts have been very clear on this question, and have
consistently found bills of this type to be unconstitutional.
Lawsuits have been filed in 10 States challenging State statutes
similar to the bill before us. In 10 States, courts have ruled that the
laws were unconstitutional and struck them down, limited their scope,
or enjoined them.
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this issue in March the
distinguished gentleman from Florida assured us that this bill was
constitutional and consistent with Roe. Since then this ban has been
struck down, changed, or enjoined on constitutional grounds in 10
States. Ten States. States have moved ahead and passed these bans--and
they have been struck down, again and again. The courts have clearly
spoken: This bill violates a woman's constitutionally protected right
to choose.
Unfortunately, we know that the anti-Choice majority won't allow a
little thing like the Constitution to stand in the way of their
abortion ban. Mr. Speaker, the anti-Choice Republican leadership has
been waging war on the reproductive rights of American women since
taking over this House in 1994. In the last Congress alone the GOP
leadership voted to limit abortion rights more than 50 separate times--
a new record. It is clear that the Republican leadership wants to ban
every abortion, procedure by procedure, trimester by trimester. They
want to roll back Roe versus Wade and push women into the back alley.
We have a different vision. We will continue to fight to ensure that
women are able to obtain safe, legal abortions. And we will work to
reduce the number of abortions by providing women with greater access
to family planning and contraceptives. We will work to empower women to
make responsible choices about their own bodies.
The Republicans have chosen to make our bodies their battlegrounds.
They will not succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for printing in the Record:
American Medical Association,
Chicago, IL, May 19, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Gingrich: On behalf of the 300,000 physician
and medical student members of the American Medical
Association (AMA), I am writing to express our strong concern
with the level of Medicare payment cuts proposed in the
budget agreement with the Administration, as well as many of
the specific physician payment changes included in the
Administration's 1998 budget proposal.
A balanced budget and solvent Medicare Trust Fund are
important goals which the AMA supports. However, we strongly
object to reducing Medicare spending by $115 billion over
five years almost entirely from cuts to physicians and other
providers. It is clear that physician spending is not the
problem with Medicare's overall growth. Physician spending
growth is already well below overall Medicare growth and
below the growth rate for any other major sector of Medicare.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under
current law, physician payments per service will fall below
current payment rates, while hospital and other Part B
services are projected to rise. In fact, physicians are the
only provider group who already face payment reductions in
Medicare under current law.
More importantly, the combination of payment cuts under
consideration, combined with pending payment changes, could
seriously undermine the quality of care physicians deliver to
Medicare patients and ultimately reduce beneficiary access to
care, as low payment rates have resulted in access problems
for Medicaid patients. CBO stated last month that ``if
payments are too tightly limited, beneficiaries could
encounter difficulties in getting care from some providers or
might not be able to obtain certain services.'' It is
critical that any proposed budget cuts be considered in
conjunction with other already pending physician payment
changes, including the implementation of the resource-based
practice expense, as discussed below.
The AMA believes Congress and the Administration should
enact fundamental reforms to the Medicare program, such as
those included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, instead of
merely reducing payments and making minor modifications to
the program. We have developed a comprehensive proposal,
Transforming Medicare, which addresses both the short and
long-term problems with Medicare, without relying on failsafe
or lookback provisions. Our plan modernizes traditional
Medicare, eliminating the need for Medigap, while preserving
the security and quality of care beneficiaries now receive.
It would create a broad menu of health plan choices of
Medicare beneficiaries to choose from, including Provider
Sponsored Organizations (PSOs) and Medical Savings Accounts
(MSAs). It includes needed regulatory reforms to fraud and
abuse and self-referral provisions, as well as cost-saving
professional liability reforms. It also ensures that a
healthy Medicare is available for future generations. We
are pleased to enclose a copy of our Transforming Medicare
proposal for your consideration.
improving the physician payment system
There is widespread agreement that the current method of
updating physician payments, the Medicare Volume Performance
[[Page H8659]]
Standard (MVPS) system, is fundamentally flawed. The
Congress, the Administration, and the Physician Payment
Review Commission (PPRC) have all proposed replace the
current MVPS update formula with a sustainable growth rate
(SGR) formula, which uses a real per capita gross domestic
product (GDP) formula to adjust for volume and intensity.
In general, the AMA supports implementing the SGR approach
as a needed correction for the MVPS. Fundamentally, the
question for policymakers is determining the level of annual
spending growth for physician services that best balances
patient care needs and the federal budget. Under the current
MVPS physician update formula, Medicare payments for
physicians are actually projected to be rolled back, while
hospital and other provider payment rates go up. Although
these non-physician services are unlikely to see their full
projected increases, their budget savings will be charged
against this rising baseline, while further savings from
physicians require even deeper cuts.
Physician practice costs, as measured by the Medicare
Economic Index (MEI), continue to rise while physician
reimbursement under Medicare is projected to fall. While we
believe that MEI is the appropriate goal for physician
updates, we understand that budgetary constraints may not
presently allow for a full MEI update for physicians. We
would be willing to accept GDP+2 under an SGR system, as was
provided in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, if there were
assurances that this could be increased to cover MEI once the
necessary Medicare savings were obtained. In contrast, under
GDP+0 as the Administration proposes, physician payments
would continue to fall well below MEI, as the chart below
indicates.
Physicians are willing to do their part to put Medicare's
fiscal house in order, as we have repeatedly done in the
past. Physicians, who accounted for 32% of combined physician
and hospital Medicare spending from 1987 to 1993, absorbed
43% of Medicare provider cuts over the same time. We are only
asking for the opportunity to have Medicare payments keep
up with the costs of providing care to Medicare
beneficiaries, and are willing to accept the challenge of
maintaining low volume growth. Budget reconciliation for
Medicare should reflect the fact that physician spending
is under better control than any other major Medicare
segment. Physicians should not be penalized for having
done the right thing in the first place.
Single Conversion Factor
The Administration's 1998 budget also proposes moving to a
single conversion factor and payment update for the physician
fee schedule. Medicare payments to physicians are set through
a conversion factor that translates the resource-based
relative value scale (RBRVS) into dollars. Currently, there
is a conversion factor for each of three types of physician
services: for 1997 these are set at $40.96 for surgery;
$35.77 for primary care; and $33.85 for other services, as
well as a separate conversion factor for anesthesiologists
discussed below.
The AMA strongly supports the move to a single conversion
factor, in conjunction with improvements to the flawed MVPS
formula. However, we believe Congress must set the single
conversion factor at an adequate level and provide for a
reasonable transition in order to minimize the negative
financial impact on surgical services and reduce potential
financial disincentives for providing care for Medicare
patients. We believe that, at a minimum, the conversion
factor for 1998 should be set no lower than the default
update under the current MVPS formula, and a single
conversion factor should be fully phased-in no earlier than
the year 2000.
Medicare reimburses anesthesiologists by a different
conversion factor methodology than that applied to other
physicians services. For 1997, the anesthesiology conversion
factor is set at $16.68, and is therefore about 46% of the
$36.24 average of the other three 1997 conversion factors.
For purposes of determining the annual update, anesthesiology
was assigned to the ``other nonsurgical'' category until 1996
when it was moved to the ``surgical'' category. The
Administration has proposed to reduce the anesthesiology
conversion factor by the same percentage as surgical services
when surgery, primary care and other nonsurgical services are
combined into a single conversion factor. However, that would
clearly be inequitable since the cumulative increases over
the life of the RBRVS are almost 17% higher for surgery than
for anesthesiology. The AMA therefore supports PPRC's
recommendation that in the move to a single conversion
factor, the current ratio (46:100) should be maintained
between the anesthesiology conversion factor and the new
single conversion factor for other specialties.
Resource-Based Practice Expense
As mentioned above, many physicians face additional extreme
payment reductions due to the implementation of the resource-
based practice expense in 1998. The Social Security Act
Amendments of 1994 requires the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) to implement a ``resource-based''
practice expense component of the Medicare fee schedule by
January 1, 1998. That is, the payment for this component--
which represents over 40 percent of the payment for physician
services--is to be based on the actual expenses incurred in
delivering each service. Currently, the practice expense
allowance is derived from a formula based on the prior
reasonable charge payment system.
The AMA supports resource-based practice expenses so long
as they reflect actual practice expenses, but is seeking a
one-year extension of the implementation date. The 1994
legislation said that HCFA should ``recognize the staff,
equipment, and supplies used in the provision of various
medical and surgical services in various settings.'' HCFA
contracted with Abt Associates to conduct a two-part study
of 3,000 physician practices expenses. When the survey was
pulled back due to poor response rates, HCFA was left
without adequate data to meet the intent of the law.
HCFA is now relying primarily on data derived from clinical
practice expert panels, or CPEPs. Early review of the
recently-released CPEP findings suggest that they contain a
number of errors. HCFA has even rejected certain direct costs
that its expert panels found were part of the cost of surgery
when doctors supply their own staff and supplies in hospital
operating rooms. The AMA and medical specialties are working
to identify and correct those flaws but more time is needed.
The cuts HCFA projected in January are so extreme that they
would nearly eliminate practice cost reimbursement for some
procedures and specialties. Many inpatient surgical
procedures and two specialties could suffer cuts of more than
80% in their practice expense values, and at least 40% in
their total payments. Under HCFA's projections, payments for
many surgical procedures would fall below Medicaid levels.
Thus, there is good reason to fear that if Medicare makes
deep cuts in its payments for complex procedures, doctors
performing these services may find that they can no longer
afford to accept Medicare patients.
PPRC has advocated that HCFA should use a three year
transition in phasing-in the new resource-based practice
expense values in order to reduce the impact. The AMA
believes that using a transition is pointless if the
underlying data and methodology is invalid. Others argue that
any problems can be corrected later through a refinement
process similar to the one used when new work values were
implemented in 1992. We strongly oppose this approach because
we believe it is inappropriate to attempt to correct
fundamentally flawed data. HCFA invested nearly three times
as much time and money on the design of new work values as it
has spent to revise practice expense values. Whereas
thousands of doctors were surveyed to come up with the work
values, in the end, there has been no broad survey of
practice expenses.
Opponents of an extension also maintain that there is no
point in waiting another year because the demise of the
indirect cost survey shows that it will be possible to
collect this information independently. We believe that with
another year, HCFA could develop alternative relative values
that bear some relationship to actual practice expenses.
There would be adequate time to validate and correct the CPEP
data. Better indirect cost allocation methodologies could be
developed and tested. Missing data could be collected,
perhaps through an expansion of existing surveys.
The AMA urges Congress to: (1) extend the resource-based
practice expense implementation date by one year to January
1, 1999; (2) require HCFA to develop a new proposed rule to
be published at least 8 months before implementation, with 90
days for public comments; (3) direct HCFA to use a new
approach to data and methodology which recognizes all staff,
equipment and supplies (not just those which can be tied to
specific procedures); (4) require that the proposed rule
include detailed impact projections which compare proposed
payment amounts to data on actual physician practice
expenses; and (5) require HCFA to consult with organizations
representing physicians regarding resource-based practice
expense methodology and data in order to ensure that
sufficient input has been received from the affected
physician community.
Other Physician Payment Issues
Assistants at Surgery
The Administration is proposing to save $400 million over
the next five years by making a single payment for surgery.
This means that the additional payment Medicare now makes for
a physician assisting the principal surgeon in performing an
operation would no longer be made. Instead, the payment
amount for the operation would have to be split between the
principal surgeon and the assistant at surgery. We believe
this provision dangerously imposes financial disincentives
for the use of an assistant at surgery and inappropriately
interferes with physician medical decision-making. The AMA
supports efforts to develop guidelines for the appropriate
use of assistants at surgery, but believes that patient care
should not be compromised in search of Medicare savings. The
professional judgment of surgeons regarding the need for an
assistant at surgery for a specific patient must be
recognized, even for operations in which an assistant
ordinarily may not be required. Congress has considered and
rejected this proposal in the past, and we urge you to reject
it again.
High Cost Medical Staff
The Administration proposes to reduce Medicare payments for
so-called high cost hospital medical staffs. This proposal is
not new. In its 1994 Annual Report to Congress, the PPRC
concluded that such a ``provision's disadvantages . . .
outweigh its advantages.'' The Commission went on to note
that such a
[[Page H8660]]
provision: ``May have unintended effects on physician
behavior, including a shifting of admissions away from
hospitals with the high-cost designation. The provision would
also increase the cost and complexity [of] administering the
Medicare program.''
In some cases, the physicians responsible for a hospital's
medical staff being designated ``high cost'' for a given year
might simply take their patients elsewhere, leaving the
remaining physicians on staff to bear the financial
consequences, with potentially serious repercussions for the
affected hospital. Finally, the proposal could
inappropriately reduce payments to physicians who treat a
sicker patient population. In the absence of a sound
methodology to measure differences in the severity of illness
of the patient population being treated by the medical staff,
it is too risky to put in place a formula-driven process that
could inappropriately lower payments for treating patients
who are more expensive to treat because they are sicker.
Centers of Excellence
The Administration proposes to expand what it calls the
``Centers of Excellence'' demonstration project, under which
Medicare makes a bundled payment to participating entities
covering both physician and facility services for selected
conditions, such as coronary artery bypass operations. We are
concerned that these demonstration projects do not offer a
potential increase in quality and cost-effectiveness, and
that these ``centers of excellence'' in fact emphasize cost-
cutting rather than excellence. We also find the name
``centers of excellence'' inappropriate in that it implies
that institutions participating in this payment arrangement
provide higher quality services than non-participating
institutions.
Outpatient Drug Payments
The Administration also proposes to reduce payments for
drugs administered in physicians' offices. Today Medicare
pays the average wholesale price for these drugs, which
include a number of therapies for treating patients who are
critically ill with cancer and kidney disease.
Under the President's plan, however, payment would be based
on a complicated ``actual acquisition cost'' methodology.
Specifically, payment would be based on the lowest price that
the physician paid for that type of drug in the previous six
month. In addition, payment would be capped at the national
median of prices paid for the drug in a period 6 to 18 months
earlier. In other words, the so-called ``actual acquisition
cost'' has nothing to do with the ``actual cost'' of the drug
provided to an individual patient.
By definition, the half of all practices above the national
median will be paid less than their purchase price for these
drugs. Since all payments will be based on prices that are
six to 18 months old, physicians will be forced to undertake
a burdensome new tracking system and to absorb any increases
imposed by drug manufacturers or wholesalers during that
time. More important, patients could suffer as physicians,
unable to recover the price of the drug let alone other
associated costs, might be forced to discontinue providing
the drug in their offices, requiring patients to have their
drugs administered in hospitals where costs to the patient
and Medicare may be higher. For all these reasons, the AMA
urges Congress to reject this unfair and impractical
proposal.
fraud and abuse
The AMA strongly opposes the Administration's efforts to
repeal the fraud and abuse safeguards included in the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Specifically, the Administration has proposed to eliminate
the obligation of the Departments of Justice and Health and
Human Services to issue advisory opinions on the anti-
kickback statute, reduce the government's burden of proof for
civil monetary penalties, and repeal the risk sharing
exception to the anti-kickback statute.
Fraud and abuse has no place in medical practice and the
AMA is committed to setting the highest ethical standards for
the profession. The incidence of misconduct can be greatly
reduced by setting standards of appropriate behavior,
disseminating this information widely, and designing and
implementing programs to facilitate compliance. HIPAA
provides new and much needed guidance by requiring HHS to
establish mechanisms to modify existing safe harbors, issue
advisory opinions, and issue special fraud alerts. This
guidance will allow physicians, hospitals and insurers to
develop efficient and effective integrated delivery systems
that will benefit Medicare, Medicaid and the private health
care marketplace.
In the area of civil monetary penalties (CMPs), HIPAA
requires that the Inspector General establish that the
physician either acted ``in deliberate ignorance of the truth
or falsity of the information.'' The AMA, along with many
Members of Congress, fought long and hard to preserve this
clarified standard in the face of strong opposition. This
standard makes the burden of proof for imposing CMPs under
HIPAA identical to the standard used in the federal False
Claims Act, and there is no reason that two enforcement tools
designed to address the same fraudulent behavior should have
different standards of proof. Moreover, this section provides
important protection for physicians who may unwittingly
engage in behavior that is impermissible.
The AMA also strongly opposes the Administration's proposal
to eliminate the new risk sharing exception to the anti-
kickback law provided in HIPAA. The expansion of managed care
in today's health care market requires additional exceptions
to the anti-kickback laws so that more flexibility in
marketing practices and contractual arrangements is afforded.
The future of the Medicare and Medicaid programs depends upon
the ability of competing plans to offer quality alternatives
to the existing program. HIPAA provides a much needed
exception to the anti-kickback law for certain risk-
sharing arrangements which will facilitate the development
of innovative and cost-effective integrated delivery
systems.
Finally, the AMA has concerns with some of the proposals in
the Administration's ``Medicare/Medicaid Waste, Fraud and
Abuse Act of 1997.'' While we have not seen any legislative
language on the proposals, we are concerned that some of the
provisions are overreaching and could impose unwarranted
penalties on unwary physicians.
Physician Self-Referral
The AMA supports reforms for physician self-referral laws
(Stark I and II) to remove barriers to arrangements among
physicians in the developing health care marketplace,
including the development of Provider Sponsored Networks
(PSNs). These laws were designed for the fee-for-service
world, but now deter the development of risk sharing
arrangements where there is no incentive for inappropriate
referrals. In addition, inappropriate referrals of Medicare
and Medicaid patients to outside laboratories and other
designated diagnostic facilities are already prohibited under
the federal anti-kickback law. Congress recognized the need
for these reforms when it passed the Balanced Budget Act of
1995. We ask you to include these same needed reforms in
Medicare legislation in the 105th Congress.
Provider Sponsored Organizations
The AMA strongly supports federal legislation which would
facilitate the development of Provider Sponsored
Organizations (PSOs). We believe PSOs should be subject to
federally developed standards which account for the
distinctions between provider networks that deliver services
directly and insurers that purchase health care services and
resell them, while also providing tough consumer protection
standards for patients. By developing a federal framework,
Congress will continue its precedent of encouraging
innovative new ventures that stimulate competition and
provide cost-saving efficiencies. The 1973 HMO Act created a
federal regulatory scheme for HMOs, preempting state laws
that interfered with their formation and operation. HMOs
argued successfully then, as did the Blue Cross plans
previously, that they represented different products and
should be evaluated by different standards. In addition, we
support PSO standards which allow as much flexibility as
possible in the ownership and management structure of a PSO
and which do not favor one provider group over another.
Professional Liability Reform
Medicare reform should also include the professional
liability reforms that have been so successful in California,
including a limit on non-economic damages of $250,000. Health
care liability costs are built into the Medicare system in
the form of physicians' and hospitals' liability premiums,
defensive medicine, and coverage for distributors of
medicines, blood services, and medical devices. In 1995, CBO
scored $200 million in federal government savings over 7
years in physician malpractice premium costs alone, without
considering similar hospital, HMO and medical supplier
liability costs. These are millions of dollars that could go
to patient care and extending the life of the HI Trust fund,
instead of paying attorney fees and insurance premiums.
Graduate Medical Education
The AMA believes that because all patients benefit from our
nation's graduate medical education (GME) system, the private
sector should participate in the funding of GME through the
development of an ``all payer'' fund. In addition, GME funds
should be carved out of Medicare's payments to HMOs (i.e.
AAPCC), with all direct medical education (DME) funds paid
directly to the entity that incurs the costs of training,
whether that entity is a medical school, hospital, nursing
home, or ambulatory clinic. However, federal support in
the form of the indirect medical education (IME)
adjustment should continue to be provided to teaching
hospitals which incur higher costs than non-teaching
hospitals in providing training and unreimbursed patient
care. Finally, a national physician workforce advisory
body should be established to monitor and periodically
assess the adequacy of the size and specialty composition
of the physician workforce in the context of the changing
needs of the evolving health care delivery system and
evolving patterns of professional practice by non-
physician health professionals.
conclusion
Congress can no longer postpone tackling fundamental reform
of the Medicare program. Failure to do so is certain to prove
even more costly for the millions of Americans who expect to
be able to rely on this program in the future, as well as
those working Americans who are called upon to help finance
it. Chopping away at physician payments in hopes of getting
more services for less money will ultimately divorce the
Medicare system and its beneficiaries from the mainstream of
American medical care.
[[Page H8661]]
However Medicare is reformed, it will be our overriding
goal to ensure that the change not damage the essential
elements of the patient-physician relationship. Above all,
reform should not break the bond of trust between a patient
and physician that makes medicine unique.
We look forward to working with you and the 105th Congress
to enact urgently needed structural reforms to protect
Medicare for our seniors and save it for our children.
Sincerely,
P. John Seward, MD.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Senate
amendment to the Late-Term Abortion Ban Act, H.R. 1122. I oppose this
legislation because, like the House-passed bill, it is fundamentally
flawed and would put at risk the life, health, and fertility of women
facing one of the most difficult, anguished, and personal decisions
imaginable.
First, let me say that I oppose late-term abortions except, as the
U.S. Supreme Court requires, when necessary to protect the life or
health of a woman. Both the House and Senate passed bills fall woefully
short of meeting this critical standard. This legislation provides only
a partial exception to protect the life of a woman, and even this
partial exception may be invoked only under a very narrow set of
circumstances.
Furthermore, it fails to provide a clear, humane, and necessary
exception when a woman faces a severe threat to her health and
specifically her ability to have children in the future. This bill bans
abortion both before and after viability, and continues to criminalize
physicians for using their best medical judgement to protect the lives
and health of women. I know the proponents continue to argue that the
Senate amendment protects physicians from criminal sanctions in lieu of
State action, but it is only a fig leaf which does not preclude
criminal prosecution. In short, this legislation sets the dangerous
precedent of allowing government to dictate medical procedures and
practices to doctors, taking away the authority of a physician to
select the best medical procedure for protecting a woman's life and
health. This bill substitutes a politician's judgement for that of a
physician.
Many of us are troubled by the procedure H.R. 1122 seeks to outlaw,
yet believe it is dangerous and wrong to ban a medical procedure that
in some circumstances represents the best hope for a woman to avoid
serious risk to her health, including her future ability to bear
children. Therefore we have attempted to offer a compromise that is
consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings on the difficult issue of
abortion. This bipartisan bill, which was never debated on the floor--
in fact was never allowed to be debated--would ban all late-term
abortions, not just one procedure, and also provide a necessary
exception when there is a serious threat to the woman's life or health.
This compromise bill is consistent with the Supreme Court's Roe versus
Wade decision and subsequent rulings. It is consistent with the State
law in 40 States, including my State of Texas, as well as the District
of Columbia. In Texas, as in other States, late-term abortions are
banned except when the woman's life or health is threatened. I believe
this bipartisan compromise is consistent with the views of the American
people. And I believe it is the right and humane thing to do. That is
the approach this legislation should take as well, but I guess it is
not the politic thing to do and that is why we are at this point today.
The legislation before us today is, unfortunately, not about stopping a
particular procedure, but about politics.
We will once again hear a lot of debate today about how often this
procedure is performed. But this issue isn't about numbers. It is about
each individual woman who faces the awful choice of what to do if she
is told that her life, health, or ability to bear children is
endangered by her pregnancy. The decision about what medical treatment
and procedures are best for that woman should be made by her and her
doctor, not the Congress of the United States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, imagine that you--or your wife--or your
daughter, learned when she is 7 months pregnant that the fetus had a
lethal neurological disorder and all of its vital organs were
atrophying. After consulting with specialists and being told that the
pregnancy is seriously jeopardizing the mother's health, and possibly
her life, your are told that an intact D&E procedure has the best
chance of preserving the mother's health and her ability to become
pregnant again.
Or imagine that the mother is 32 weeks pregnant when she learns that
the baby has no brain. The fetus has no chance of survival. The mother
is diabetic, so a Cesarian section and induced labor are more dangerous
to her health and reproductive capacity than an intact D&E procedure.
Would you want 435 politicians to tell you--or your wife--or your
daughter, the type of medical procedure she could use in this painful
situation? Should Congress be able to determine whether a woman will
lose her capacity to reproduce and bear children? Well that is
precisely the situation that Coreen Costello and Vicki Stella were in.
And if we adopt this bill, we will be telling many, many other women
that Washington knows best when it comes to terminating pregnancies
that have resulted in tragic circumstances.
H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional, because they contain no exception
providing for the physical health of the mother. The Senate amendments
on which we are voting today do nothing to correct that problem with
the bill. Roe versus Wade, and its progeny, clearly hold that a woman's
right to protect her life and health, in the context of reproductive
choice, trumps the government, as big brother, in its desire to
regulate.
And recently, several similar State statutes banning this procedure
have been found unconstitutional. In fact, in my home State of
Michigan, on July 31, 1997, Judge Gerald Rosen struck down Michigan's
partial-birth abortion ban, finding that the definition of partial-
birth was so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion
procedures were banned. Moreover, the court found that the State law
unduly burdened women's ability to obtain an abortion. It is clear that
H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments violate that well established
constitutional law long-settled by Roe.
The majority will try to tell you that this bill is OK, because they
have the support of the American Medical Association. But don't let
them fool you. The AMA had consistently remained neutral on this issue,
and did not take a position on the bill when it was first introduced in
1995. And in mid-May of this year, the AMA stated that it did ``not
support any [abortion] legislative proposals at this time.''
Yet, within weeks, the AMA board changed its position. Just like
that. Why? Well, no one will really ever knew, but isn't it surprising
that the very day that the AMA announced its switcheroo, its executive
vice president, P. John Seward, sent an eight-page letter to Newt
Gingrich that lists the AMA requests in the budget negotiations
concerning Medicare spending. In that letter, the AMA laid out a
detailed plan to stall or minimize any cuts that might come from
physicians. All on the same day that the organization decided suddenly
to support the partial-birth abortion bill. Well, well. So don't let
them fool you. There was no substantive reason the AMA decided to vote
for the bill. It was just another one of those political games.
Yesterday, the minority testified before the Rules Committee seeking
an open rule that would make in order two amendments dealing with the
physical health of the mother. But our request was denied, and neither
amendment was made in order. The first alternative, offered by Mr.
Hoyer, would ban post-viability abortions unless a physician certifies
that continuing of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or
risk grievous injury to her physical health. The second alternative, an
amendment offered by Ms. Lowey, would provide that the restriction on
abortion procedures in the bill would apply only to post-viability
abortions and include exceptions to preserve the life of the woman or
to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
Both of these amendments comport with the standard established in Roe
that the health of the mother should not be jeopardized in any
circumstance. Either of them would have made the underlying amendment
constitutional and the President would have signed it. But the
President cannot, and will not, sign an unconstitutional bill that does
not protect a mother's health, and has promised to veto this
legislation if it passes.
Of course, the Republican leadership has little interest in
developing a credible and serious constitutional proposal that could be
signed into law. Instead, they prefer a wedge issue that can divide the
American people. That's why they wouldn't make a single amendment
concerning health in order.
But H.R. 1122 has no health exception, and we are led to believe that
the reason is because its authors have determined that under no
possible condition is a mother's health--no matter how serious--to be
equated with the potential life of a fetus. To them, the partial birth
abortion ban is merely a means of preventing any and all abortions,
even where the mother's health is in jeopardy. But the reality is, the
bill will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions
performed in this country. Zero. It will only criminalize physicians
for pursuing the safest alternative in dealing with a very painful,
difficult, and terrifying circumstance when a pregnancy has gone bad,
and the mother's physical health is in jeopardy.
Let's take the politicians out of this intensely personal issue. When
it comes to a woman's life or health, Washington doesn't always know
best.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. For over 2 years the abortion
industry has conducted a systematic campaign of falsehoods and
misinformation about the nature of partial-birth abortion.
[[Page H8662]]
Apologists for this abominable practice have attempted to raise a fog
of mendacity during our deliberations.
Today we will hear that partial-birth abortions are extremely rare--
only about 500 are performed in a year. We will also hear that partial-
birth abortions are safe, and absolutely necessary to protect a woman's
health.
Mr. Speaker, this information is completely false and an outright
lie.
The truth can't be changed no matter how many times it's
misrepresented. I would like to remind my colleagues of a leading
abortion advocate, along with others in the abortion industry, who
knowingly lied about the real reasons women seek partial-birth
abortions.
Mr. Speaker, this procedure is medieval, and so is the logic of those
who advocate and apologize for it.
The fog has been pierced and the truth has come to light. What
everyone can clearly see today, Mr. Speaker, is that partial-birth is a
practice that exposes abortion for what it truly is, the killing of an
infant.
This debate is not about when life begins, for the infants targeted
by this procedure are mostly alive. This debate is over a matter of
inches.
And Mr. Speaker, I submit that the constitutional right to life has
jurisdiction over those inches.
Our system of laws, our American heritage, is based on the idea that
people have certain God-given rights. Those rights are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
As lawmakers we have a responsibility to protect the lives of our
citizens, in this case, the very youngest, most vulnerable of American
citizens.
I urge my colleagues to stand against this hideous, repugnant
practice.
Let us stand up for a good principle and let us stop partial-birth
abortion now.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this oppressive, extremist legislation. The American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecology has called this ban ``inappropriate, ill-
advised, and dangerous.'' I call it an outright assault on women's
lives.
Let's put this in perspective. There were more than 50 anti-choice
votes in the 104th Congress. There have been over 20 anti-choice votes
thus far in the 105th Congress. Choice opponents have said they intend
to ban abortion procedure by procedure, and this bill is another step
down that slippery slope.
President Clinton has said he would support a ban that includes
exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. Why is it so
hard for so-called pro-life zealots to allow for compassionate
exceptions, exceptions that could save a mother's life and perhaps her
future fertility? The Rules Committee, by taking away our right to
amend, refuses to allow us to include anything that would provide the
safest, most compassionate way to handle a pregnancy that has no hope.
Let me remind my colleagues of the recent real-life trauma suffered
by Coreen Costello. She came to Congress to tell her heart-wrenching
story. A conservative, pro-life mother of two, Coreen and her family
were devastated to learn that a lethal disease left their much-wanted,
unborn daughter unable to survive outside the womb. Coreen attempted to
carry the pregnancy to term, but the fetus' body stiffened and wedged
dangerously into her body. Under this bill, the critical intact D&E
procedure could not have been performed. This bill would have
sacrificed Coreen Costello and her future fertility to the politics of
anti-choice extremists.
The issue is not how many women undergo this procedure, but how many
women who, like Coreen Costello, have no other choice but this
particular procedure. The few women who need this procedure deserve our
support and sympathy, not congressionally mandated limitations on their
medical choices. By not permitting compassionate exceptions to the ban
on the late-term procedure, this bill slams the door on a family's
future, on a mother's health, and on a mother's life.
This Congress has absolutely no business passing legal judgments on
life-saving medical procedures. This Congress has absolutely no
business interfering in the decisions made by a woman and her doctor.
We should be outraged.
This Congress dares to make criminals of doctors who have taken an
oath to save lives. This Congress dares to presume it can legislate
this profoundly intimate decision. This Congress dares to protect the
natural death of a fetus over the life of a woman, a mother, a wife.
Congress has no place in this decision, and no place in these
tragedies.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect women's constitutional right to choose.
We must protect women's right to life. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Canady].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296,
nays 132, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 500]
YEAS--296
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--132
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kolbe
Lantos
[[Page H8663]]
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--6
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hilliard
Lewis (KY)
Payne
Schiff
{time} 1349
Messrs. FARR of California, TORRES, FORD, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island and Mr. PAXON changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________