[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6203-H6207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF 
                THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 105-158)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth 
abortions.
  The question is, will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).


                             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. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, we now come before the House again on a 
subject that has been debated many times. The advantage that we have 
today is that the American public now knows this subject.
  The American public knows that there is no truth in the statement 
that there is a need for this procedure at any time, at any place, in 
any way.
  How do I know that? I have delivered well over 3,000 babies. I have 
handled every major known complication of pregnancy. This debate in the 
past has been about untruth. It has been about a desire to preserve an 
option of not fulfilling one's responsibility to a child. We have 
already heard today mischaracterizations and facts that do not exist. 
Those are called untruths about this procedure.
  It is my hope that we can come together as a Nation and understand 
that partial-birth abortion is murder. Nothing short, nothing less. 
There is never an instance in which a woman would have to have a 
partial-birth abortion versus some other means of saving her life and 
caring for her infant. That is something that people should keep in 
mind as we debate this issue.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I wish we could discuss this very serious issue with a 
bowl full of truth and not one of jelly beans.
  When a woman is faced with this type of painful circumstance, it is 
one that she should face without government interference. Frankly, I 
think the American people do not want Democrats playing God, and the 
Republicans certainly should not play God.
  This is a very serious issue, and if the Republican Majority was so 
concerned about the loss of lives of babies, when the President vetoed 
this legislation in October of 1997, we could have swiftly moved to 
committee and looked at opportunities in order to save the mother's 
life and to protect the mother's health.
  But, Madam Speaker, it is July 1998, just a few months from election, 
and they wish to play with the lives of women. We have 200 million 
citizens, over 51 percent of them women. I would imagine that 3,000 
babies pale to how many babies have been delivered.
  Madam Speaker, as a mother, I love children and I want to see the 
wonderful birth of children continue and the loving families to nurture 
them. But how many have listened to the pain that I have listened to? 
We have had women come and testify saying that they wanted nothing more 
than to have a healthy baby and to have an opportunity to give birth in 
years to come. Their doctor insisted, because of the health and the 
life of the mother to be able to be viable for birth again, that this 
procedure was a necessary procedure.
  Yet, the Republicans want to tell us that they override the 
President's veto today so they can stand on the right side of the 
issue. This legislation will deny the physician, the woman's God, and 
her family to determine any type of procedure. No procedure will be 
allowed.
  Let me tell my colleagues the bare facts. Last year 19 States banned 
so-called partial-birth abortion. Seventeen were challenged and the 
challenge was upheld. Those bans are no longer because reasonable 
people realize this is not something mothers go lightly into.
  I saw the pain in these women's faces. I saw the desire to be mothers 
and to nurture. I saw the loss of fathers who wanted to be able to have 
a child.
  Madam Speaker, I simply say to the Republicans, this is no time to 
play any games. When we have a child with fatal abnormalities, if my 
colleagues have ever looked at that living thing and saw that it could 
not live at all, that is a painful and wrenching decision that is 
required to be made again by our Heavenly Father, of whom we believe 
in, and the physician, and the family.
  So I would ask that this override not take place, because I stand 
with those who want life and the opportunity for life.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify three misstatements 
of fact that were just made. Number one, the ban on partial-birth 
abortion never puts a woman's fertility at risk. That is number one.
  Number two, this bill does allow in the instance of the life of a 
mother, if it is at risk, a partial-birth abortion to be done. We do 
not think that is ever the case, and I know that as a physician never 
to be the case, but we allow that under the law.
  Finally, if a child has a terminal defect, what could be better than 
having it be born and loved rather than killing it?
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  Ms. FURSE. Madam Speaker, there is only one question that the people 
of America need to ask themselves in this debate. Only one. That is: 
``Do you want a physician in your doctor's office making this decision 
with you, or do you want a politician?''
  Madam Speaker, I am not a physician. I am a politician. I will not 
make this decision for the women and families of this country, and no 
other politician should make that decision for them.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I am a mother myself and married to a 
physician. There is very little that any of the previous speakers can 
tell me about abortions and about pregnancies and about life that I do 
not already know.
  One thing I do know is our Constitution guarantees us the right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The most fundamental of 
those things is life.
  In our State laws in many States, the sanctity of unborn life is 
already regarded as a right. Let me tell my colleagues how. Criminally, 
if a woman is assaulted and loses her child, the person who assaulted 
her can be charged with manslaughter, can be charged with murder. Even 
if the mother survives, that child, that unborn child, has a right to 
live.
  If someone negligently kills the father of an unborn child, the 
mother or

[[Page H6204]]

a guardian can sue on behalf of that unborn child for negligence. So in 
the civil courts, we recognize that unborn children have a right to 
live.
  And to think of delivering a child up to its head and then removing 
the brain from that child that is viable and that can live out of the 
womb. There is a home in America where that child could be loved and 
wanted. To deliver a child that could live and kill it is absolutely a 
mortal sin. It is a legal wrong. It is against everything that we stand 
for in this country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the 
President's veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I want to place in the Record the words of the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who said that the 
intact D&E 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 a doctor in consultation with the patient should make 
that decision.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, what I have heard thus far, it 
seems as though we are trying to make the victims of a tragic situation 
the culprits. For as a man, as a husband, as a father, and as having 
the opportunity of talking to many of the women that had to undergo 
this tragic circumstance, one would think that from the other side that 
these women went through this willingly and they went through this as a 
mechanism to get rid of a child.
  They went through it because of no other alternative, because of 
serious health results that would have happened had they delivered this 
child, or because of bad chromosomes, malfunctions with reference to a 
child.
  I dare say that most, not most, 95 percent of the women that have to 
undergo this unfortunate circumstance, this never leaves them. How do I 
know? Just look at a woman who may have lost a child, for she wanted to 
have that child, and I can just testify to the fact that just a few 
months ago, my wife and I lost a child and my wife had to undergo a 
special procedure for her health to get the child out of the womb.
  My wife still has not recovered from that, for she had no other 
alternative because the doctor said that if the fetus stayed in any 
longer, she could have some serious health ramifications.
  So this is not a procedure that one does out of convenience, this is 
what one does out of kindness, out of respect for this woman. Without 
her, I would be nothing and there would be no chance to have another 
child.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, let us clarify for the American public, 
the vast majority of all partial birth abortions that have been 
performed in this country have been for the elective termination of a 
late pregnancy, not associated with fetal malformations, not associated 
with a malformation or an inconsequence of reproduction, but associated 
with elective termination of viable children.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, this is a hard issue for many, but I urge 
all of us to keep several things in mind. First, Roe versus Wade sets 
up a careful framework: Abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy 
are strictly limited.
  No one here is talking about changing or expanding that framework.
  Second, late-term abortions are tragic. We are talking about wanted 
pregnancies that go terribly wrong.
  Third, as our colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) 
said, doctors, not Congress, should choose the procedure to be used in 
the tragic event that a late-term abortion is necessary.
  Fourth, in my view, the President showed great courage in vetoing 
that bill and I think we should uphold his veto because, as the mother 
of four wanted children, the product of fortunately healthy 
pregnancies, I would have wanted the choice in the event that I learned 
late in my pregnancy that my fetus was so grossly deformed that it 
would not live beyond a few hours after birth, even if that, and that 
my reproductive health was at risk. I would have wanted that choice, 
and I do want that choice, under constitutional guarantees, for every 
woman in this country.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding 
the President's veto of partial birth abortion. We could talk about the 
abstract issue but we have a very narrow piece of legislation here that 
prevents the art and the notion of partial birth abortion, which is, 
for the sake of argument, almost delivering a child to birth and 
killing it.
  We are not talking about a piece of chalk or a chair or a clock. We 
are talking about an innocent young child, a child that will never 
experience the joy of life, the power of laughter, all great 
accomplishments that any parent would want in a child.
  Is it not amazing that in this country, where double parking your car 
or jaywalking is against the law that we can allow unfettered a partial 
delivery of a baby and killing it?
  Madam Speaker, I urge every Member of Congress and every American to 
explore their conscience and override the President's veto.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam 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. Madam 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 on their health decisions 
launched by the Republican leadership in this House. Today's assault on 
women is an especially dangerous attack because it is part of a bigger 
conspiracy which puts politics first and women's health last.
  I rise in opposition today, Madam Speaker, because this veto override 
is dangerous. It does not safeguard the health of women in this 
country, and that is what this bill should be about, not about whether 
the government or Members of Congress are allowed to poke their nose 
into the middle of decisions best made between a woman, her family, and 
her doctor.
  First, my colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), tells 
us late-term abortion is never necessary. Then, after hearing the 
compelling story of our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks), he tells us that it is sometimes necessary. It is that 
``sometimes'' that makes it the reason that the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and 
the American Medical Women's Association are strongly opposed to this 
legislation. It is because sometimes that is the right decision to be 
made between the mother, the family, and their doctor.
  It continues to amaze me, Madam Speaker, that Members of this House 
have so little faith in women, the very people who bear and raise the 
children of this country, that they would deny them access to life-
saving procedures out of an outrageous notion that pregnant women would 
elect to abort a child in the late term of that pregnancy.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to respond.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, what we are talking about is infanticide. 
We have seen the debate as something other than that. There is nothing 
in this bill that denies any woman access to quality care or life-
threatening care or reproductive care. I understand that is the debate 
we are using to say that we believe any baby at any time ought to be 
able to be terminated. But there is no difference between this 
procedure and infanticide.
  As to the question of Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court said they 
did not know when life began. Well, the fact is, as we determine death 
in this

[[Page H6205]]

country as an absence of brain waves and an absence of heartbeat, and 
at 41 days post last menstrual period, every fetus, female and male, 
have a heartbeat and a brain wave.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman from Oklahoma would answer a question, 
I would appreciate it.
  My question is does the gentleman consider the story that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) was telling us about his wife and 
his lost baby infanticide?
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. No, I did not say that. I said the partial-birth 
procedure is a question of infanticide. There are lots of mistakes of 
reproduction. Never is it necessary to use the partial-birth abortion 
method to solve that problem.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  The question today before us is not only the question of life or 
death for thousands of partially born children in our country, but it 
is also a question of who we are as a people.
  What kind of people are we? What kind of people are we when we are so 
unwilling to defend the smallest, most helpless and vulnerable among 
us? Partial-birth abortion is a sick, gruesome procedure. It is a 
violation of the most basic of human rights. It is a violation of the 
right to the gift of life.
  We shudder when we see brutality in warring nations, we shudder when 
he hear stories of genocide and ethnic cleansing, we shudder when we 
see pain and torture and death around the world. But do we shudder when 
we consider the reality of partial-birth abortion? Do we shudder to 
think that here in the United States this is a legal procedure?
  The President has acted out of a cold disregard for human life. His 
veto is a shameful act and it is unacceptable.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this attack on the 
fundamental rights of American women. Members of this House have tried 
time and again to limit the right to choose. They have imposed 
restrictions on Federal employees, on those who receive Medicaid, on 
women in the military, on women in prison, and on women under the age 
of 18. But they do not stop there. We saw last week their efforts to 
limit access even to birth control. We even saw them argue that the 
birth control pill is a form of abortion.
  Their agenda is quite clear. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court 
has upheld the fundamental right of choice, it is their stated agenda 
not only to outlaw abortions by any means, but to limit access to birth 
control for millions of American women. That is why this vote today is 
so critical. It is an attempt to subvert the rulings of the Supreme 
Court and to implement phase I of their plan to eliminate the right to 
choice and to the availability of contraceptives.
  When we debated this bill a year ago we argued that it was 
unconstitutional and could not be enforced. Time has proven us right. 
In 17 States courts have enjoined so-called partial-birth abortion bans 
as unconstitutional because they are vague, they fail to provide 
physicians adequate notice as to what is prohibited, they provide no 
exception whatsoever to preserve a woman's health, and only a 
dangerously inadequate exception to preserve a woman's life. Six of 
these unconstitutional State laws have virtually identical language to 
the bill before us today.
  The bill is fundamentally flawed for another reason. 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 Members are pro choice because they believe it is a woman's 
decision, not the government's, about whether or not to have an 
abortion, then they should vote against this bill. If my colleagues 
believe that sometimes abortions are necessary to protect the health or 
life of a woman, then they should vote against this bill. If they 
believe that doctors should not be denied the option of using a medical 
procedure as they deem appropriate, then they must reject this bill. If 
they believe in the fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade, they must 
not support this bill, which severely restricts a woman's rights to 
choose.
  Make no mistake, this bill is not about one particular procedure, it 
is about the fundamental right to choice. I urge my colleagues to 
defend a woman's right to choose and to reject this dangerous bill.
  Let me close by quoting a letter of a woman from New York City who 
faced a tragic situation involving a fetus with a severely deformed 
heart and who would have been affected by this bill had it already 
become law. She writes, and I quote,

       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.

  It could not be said better. Who are we to tell women in such tragic 
situations what to do? Women should make these choices, not 
politicians.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, every year this heinous procedure is 
performed thousands of times on healthy babies with healthy mothers, 
usually in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy. For these tiny 
children, the difference between a painful death and full protection of 
the law is literally four inches. Four inches; the difference between 
death and life.
  Congress has expressed the will of the overwhelming number of 
Americans who want to outlaw this inhumane procedure. The people have 
spoken, but the President has refused to listen. He has ignored the 
conscience of the American people, who plainly see that this is nothing 
more than a painful, cruel and unnecessary act.
  Madam Speaker, this is the people's body. Although the President will 
not listen to the American people, we will. I urge my colleagues to 
override the President's shameful veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me this time.
  I have been sitting here listening to this, and then I know tomorrow 
that I have to take some votes on managed care because we are very 
concerned about insurance companies who are going to and have been 
making decisions on people's health care.
  Today, the question that I have to ask, and which just really bothers 
me, is today my colleagues want me to vote to allow Congress to make a 
decision on my medical care and not a doctor. But tomorrow they are 
going to tell me that a doctor should be making my decision and not the 
insurance company. Somewhere something is wrong in this place.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, abortion is the most violent form of death 
known to mankind. It is violence against children and it is violence 
against women. When will liberals begin to truly seek protection for 
American women?
  Listen to this statement by Dr. Camilla Hersh, member of the 
Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, which details the violence of a 
partial-birth abortion.

       Consider the grave danger involved in a partial-birth 
     abortion. A woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over several 
     days. This risks creating an incompetent cervix, a leading 
     cause of subsequent premature delivery. It also risks serious 
     infection, a major cause for subsequent infertility. Partial-
     birth abortion is a partially blind procedure, done by feel, 
     thereby risking scissor injury to the mother's uterus and 
     laceration of the cervix or lower uterine segment. Either the 
     scissors or bony shards of the baby's perforated and 
     disrupted skull bones can roughly rip into the large blood 
     vessels which supply the

[[Page H6206]]

     lower part of the lush pregnant uterus, resulting in 
     immediate and massive bleeding.

  Let us stop kidding ourselves. Partial-birth abortion is violence. 
Let us override the President's veto.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I have joined several of my colleagues in supporting a 
bill that will actually prohibit all late-term abortions, consistent 
with the Constitution. We have heard that bill described. It is 
consistent with the law. And if we want to prohibit as many abortions 
as possible, we ought to consider that bill.
  We have heard suggestions that some physicians think that the partial 
birth abortion ban is appropriate. Other physicians think that it ought 
to be an option for physicians. That decision ought to be left to the 
physicians.
  This bill will not prohibit any abortions. It will just relegate some 
women to procedures which their physician thinks may kill, maim, or 
sterilize them. And that is why this bill ought to be opposed.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, the statement that this will not eliminate 
any abortions is not a correct statement. The vast majority of partial 
birth abortions are elective abortions. Elective. That means somebody 
who is pregnant who does not want to be pregnant. It has nothing to do 
with the quality of life of the child. It has to do with the choice to 
kill a baby at any stage. So this is about eliminating abortions in 
this method.
  Number two, end this procedure. Everyone who practices medicine 
realizes this is a terrible procedure. This is not medicine. This is 
death.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the veto 
override.
  I would like to address an issue that has been brought up repeatedly 
by the other side that most of these partial birth abortions, or a 
substantial portion of them, are done for medical necessity.
  There has only been one study published on this procedure. It was the 
original report that appeared in the American Medical News by the 
originators of this grisly procedure, Drs. Haskell and McMann; and they 
described about 100 cases. Eighty-five percent were purely elective 
abortions.
  So these were elective terminations of pregnancy of a healthy infant. 
So they are killing a healthy infant this way. Of the 15 percent that 
were for medical defects, the majority of them were for cleft palate 
and cleft lip. So to come here and to propose this disingenuous canard 
that we need this procedure in the face of those kinds of facts to me 
is totally unacceptable.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this veto 
override.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) respond to a question? 
If we cannot use this procedure, what procedure would be used?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. The alternative procedures, in my opinion, are 
just as gruesome and grisly. And I have actually seen some of them.
  In my opinion, late terminations of pregnancy should be illegal. The 
bill which the gentleman is talking about I am sure includes the 
provision that all liberals who are pro-abortion want, which is a 
provision to protect the health of the mother. And that has been 
defined to include mental health. And the vast majority of women who 
want to get an abortion claim it for that reason, it is for their 
mental health that they want to terminate an unborn baby.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I would say the provision in the Hoyer-Greenwood bill 
that allows an exception for the health of the mother is there because 
the Supreme Court says it has to be there. Otherwise, the bill is 
unconstitutional.
  If we pass a bill without that provision, it will be thrown out, just 
like most of the similar bills that have been passed by states have 
been thrown out.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, I disagree, as do many people in the United States, with the 
decision of the Supreme Court on this issue.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 additional seconds.
  That is why the bill is unconstitutional. My colleague just disagrees 
with the constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court. We are 
going to pass an unconstitutional bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond on this constitutional issue.
  The Supreme Court, in Roe versus Wade, with which I disagree, talked 
about the status of the unborn child. In this bill, we are dealing with 
the status of a partially delivered child, and that is a matter that is 
entirely different. It is excluded from the scope of Roe versus Wade.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, I understand and respect those who 
disagree with my opinion on this procedure. They have my respect. I 
disagree with them. But I wanted to describe an alternative to this. 
There is not a fetal malformation that this is required for. ACOG says 
that. Their words are ``may.'' It is not ``must.''
  I want to tell my colleagues about patients that I have delivered who 
have had these tremendous malformations of their children. And I want 
my colleagues to decide, is it easier to kill a baby four-fifths of the 
way out of the mother and lie to her about the real consequences of the 
procedure, or is it better to encourage her to carry her baby to term 
even though it is not going to live and give her the opportunity and 
the husband, the mother and her husband and the father, an opportunity 
to hold and to love and to care for part of us?
  I want to tell my colleagues about Jakey. Jakey had a courageous mom 
and dad. Jakey was a patient of mine. Jakey did not have all of his 
brain. His mother and father could have chosen to go to Kansas or lots 
of other places and have a termination. But what they chose was life. 
Maybe a very short life, but they chose life.
  They chose 4\1/2\ hours of life for Jakey. They chose 4\1/2\ hours 
where they could hold what God had given them and say, we will deal 
with this. We will not run away from it. We will not put it out as a 
convenience. We will deal with the fact that life sometimes brings us 
things other than perfect and we will face that.
  Partial birth abortion, whether it is for an elective procedure or 
for a fetal malformation, ducks the very value of life that all of us, 
whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, know we have to have as a 
society that is going to continue.
  And to deny the truth, and that is what this whole argument is about, 
the truth that we can do it some other way that serves us as a human 
race in a much far better way that teaches our children to value life 
rather than to throw life away, we do a disservice to our Constitution, 
we do a disservice to the human race.
  That is what I would ask my colleagues to think about. They may not 
be the most convenient ways to handle the problem. They may not be the 
fastest ways to solve the problem. But they are by far the best way to 
solve the problem.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. There is not much quarrel that we can have 
with anyone who advocates life. There is not a mother on the floor of 
the House or human being who would advocate against life.
  What the doctor fails to realize is that what we are arguing for is 
the right of the woman, with her special relationship, her God, and her 
medical professional to make the decision.
  It is interesting that we would discuss life in this context, when 
many of those who stand on the floor of the House would support the 
death penalty. We have to be consistent in life.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

[[Page H6207]]

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I know many have heard about the news 
and it will be or has been discussed today about the abortionist in 
Arizona who delivered the little girl and later discovered that he had 
misguessed the child's age. And rather than 23 gestational weeks old, 
the little girl had reached the age of about 36 weeks on June 30, when 
her 17-year-old mother subjected herself and her baby to a planned 
partial birth abortion at an AZ Women's Center in Phoenix.
  This is not the first time this abortionist had this happen to him. 
He is currently being sued because one of his patients bled to death 
following an abortion in 1996. But the story of this latest mishap, 
which came to light just this past week and received wide coverage 
across the country, is just one more reason why we need to ban this 
procedure, which is a cruel form of infanticide, pure and simple.
  Abortionists across the country knowingly commit partial birth 
abortions on babies as young as 20 gestational weeks, and they will 
continue to kill these babies and endanger the lives if we do not act 
today to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth 
Abortion Act.
  A baby delivered prematurely between 23 and 24 weeks would have a 
one-in-three chance of survival in a neonatal unit if delivered under 
normal circumstances and certainly would not feel the excruciating pain 
of a partial birth abortion.
  So the question we will vote on today is quite simply whether we 
oppose allowing a fetus to suffer excruciating pain or whether we 
support life.
  I am proud to stand here today with those who oppose infanticide and 
support life.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman have Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) suggested 
that we disagree with his decision. I do not agree or disagree with his 
decision. What I disagree with is Congress making the medical decision.
  This bill will not prohibit a single abortion. There will be 
alternatives which were not described other than they are just as 
gruesome as this, and those alternatives would be used.
  The bill, without the health exception, puts us in a situation where 
we will either allow the woman, if the bill does not pass, might have a 
choice of having a procedure that will not sterilize her by using this 
procedure. If this bill passes, the only alternative may require her 
sterilization. I do not think we ought to be making that choice for her 
that one procedure is more preferable than the one that might sterilize 
her.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional, and everybody 
knows it. People have indicated they disagree with Roe v. Wade. The 
bill is unconstitutional. If we want to prohibit late-term abortions, 
we ought to pass the Hoyer-Greenwood bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
is recognized for 13 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the bill. Because this legislation, my 
colleagues, puts the lives and health of women at risk and it tramples 
on the constitutional right of every woman in this Nation.
  Unfortunately, the GOP leadership has been waging war on abortion 
rights since taking over this House in 1994. This is the 93rd vote on 
reproductive rights in less than 4 years. 93 times. The goal is clear, 
ban every abortion procedure by procedure, month after month.
  Madam Speaker, we have a different vision.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman suspend for just a 
minute?
  I understand that, prior to the close, they will ask for a Call of 
the House; and I think it would be appropriate for both closing 
speakers to be heard, and at this time I would suspend for the motion.

                          ____________________