[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8891-H8892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
                  UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 105-158)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1122, which would 
prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion. I am 
returning H.R. 1122 for exactly the same reasons I returned an earlier 
substantially identical version of this bill, H.R. 1833, last year. My 
veto message of April 10, 1996, fully explains my reasons for returning 
that bill and applies to H.R. 1122 as well. H.R. 1122 is a bill that is 
consistent neither with the Constitution nor sound public policy.
  As I stated on many occasions, I support the decision in Roe v. Wade 
protecting a woman's right to choose. Consistent with that decision, I 
have long opposed late-term abortions, and I continue to do so except 
in those instances necessary to save the life of a woman or prevent 
serious harm to her

[[Page H8892]]

health. Unfortunately, H.R. 1122 does not contain an exception to the 
measure's ban that will adequately protect the lives and health of the 
small group of women in tragic circumstances who need an abortion 
performed at a late stage of pregnancy to avert death or serious 
injury.
  I have asked the Congress repeatedly, for almost 2 years, to send me 
legislation that includes a limited exception for the small number of 
compelling cases where use of this procedure is necessary to avoid 
serious health consequences. When Governor of Arkansas, I signed a bill 
into law that barred third-trimester abortions, with an appropriate 
exception for life or health. I would do so again, but only if the bill 
contains an exception for the rare cases where a woman faces death or 
serious injury. I believe that Congress should work in a bipartisan 
manner to fashion such legislation.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, October 10, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will be 
printed as a House document.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
message of the President and the bill be referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. SCOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to explain his request.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. This unanimous-consent request would send the veto 
message of the President and the bill to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
considering that this bill was vetoed because it lacked a health 
exception, does the subcommittee chairman intend to process similar 
legislation which exempts from the bill's coverage cases where it is 
necessary to protect the health of the mother, which provision, of 
course, is necessary in order for the bill to meet constitutional 
muster so that we can actually have a bill?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the legislation which the President has again vetoed seeks to 
ban the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The procedure is 
performed several thousand times each year, primarily in the fifth and 
sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. To the 
victims of partial-birth abortion, this is no rhetorical campaign 
statement, as some have said. Instead, it is a means, partial-birth 
abortion is a means to a brutal death.
  According to the American Medical Association, which supports H.R. 
1122, partial-birth abortion is not an accepted medical practice. 
Hundreds of obstetricians and gynecologists and fetal maternal 
specialists, along with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop have 
come forward to unequivocally state that partial-birth abortion is 
never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future 
fertility.
  In fact, the procedure can significantly threaten a mother's health 
or ability to carry future children to term. In conclusion, the health 
exception sought by the President would be both unnecessary and 
dangerous. We want to enact a meaningful ban on partial-birth abortions 
that will protect innocent babies from a brutal death. That is exactly 
what the bill does. No changes in the bill are necessary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, since 
it is clear that the constitutionally required health exception will 
probably not be included and so that we can determine the effect of the 
motion to refer and because it would seem useless to have this bill 
just gathering dust in the Committee on the Judiciary until we engage 
in another futile political exercise during next year's campaign, I 
would ask the gentleman when we could expect a bill to be considered by 
the House?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I reject certain premises contained in the 
gentleman's question. I believe that this bill is constitutional. It 
does not fall within the scope of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade dealt with 
the status of the unborn child. I disagree with the court's decision in 
Roe v. Wade, but I do not believe that that decision covers the case of 
a partially born child. This is different in that regard.
  I think it is clearly distinguishable from what the court dealt with 
in Roe v. Wade. On the question of timing, it would be the intention of 
the committee to bring this back to the floor for a vote on overriding 
the veto sometime next year before the conclusion of this Congress. We 
do not have a date established for action.
  Mr. SCOTT. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would just say that we disagree on the constitutionality of a bill 
without the health exception and several State bills very similar to 
this have been already thrown out just this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the bill will be 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________