[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6208-H6213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 105-158)
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise against the bill.
Madam Speaker I rise against this bill.
This is the first time that Congress has attempted to criminalize a
medical procedure--a rare procedure used to save a woman's life and
save her reproductive future.
That's what it was for Kim Koster, who lives in Iowa. In November
1996, she became pregnant. In February, she faced heartbreaking news:
Their baby had anencephaly--no brain. Kim says, ``our world came
crashing down around us.'' Thankfully, the D and E procedure was
available, and Kim's fertility remained intact.
In March of this year, Kim became pregnant, and just last week, she
learned that--again--she has another baby with no brain. Nineteen
states, including Iowa, have blocked these state laws, ruling that they
are unconstitutional, vague, and overly broad. Thankfully, Kim was able
to have the abortion she needed.
Unfortunately, this federal bill prevents women like Kim Koster from
receiving necessary, safe medical care in rare cases when a much wanted
pregnancy has gone tragically wrong. When a woman seeks medical care,
she wants the best care her doctor can provide.
Congress has no place in their decisions. And Congress has no place
politicizing family tragedies. Apparently, the supporters of this bill
feel it is more important to save a doomed fetus than the life of the
mother and her ability to have children in the future.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this override vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has 12 minutes remaining.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This
legislation puts the lives and health of women at risk, and it tramples
on the constitutional rights of every woman in this Nation.
The GOP leadership, unfortunately, 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 by month.
Madam Speaker, we have a different vision. We want to reduce the
number of abortions, not by making them illegal, but by empowering
women to make healthy choices about their own reproductive health care.
Last week, we had a crucial vote in this House on a measure that will
help reduce the number of abortions in the United States. That
initiative will ensure that Federal employee health plans cover
prescription contraceptives. It passed because the American people are
tired of these polarizing debates. They want common sense solutions to
preventing unintended pregnancy and reducing the number of abortions.
Increased access to contraceptive coverage is one such approach; the
bill before us, frankly, is not.
My good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), and we have
worked together on many issues. However, my contraceptive coverage
amendment, in my judgment, will prevent more abortions in a week than
this bill ever will. It will do so by improving women's health, not by
endangering it.
I am only sorry that the gentleman from Florida could not join us
last week in supporting contraceptive coverage because that is the way
that we will really reduce unintended pregnancies and prevent
abortions.
So let us work together. Let us reduce the number of abortions. But,
instead, we are, once again, considering this divisive issue. In fact,
this is the sixth time this bill has come before the House. Each of
those times, we tried to offer an amendment to the bill to protect the
health of the mother, and each time the Republican leadership blocked
us. We offered to sit down with the Republican leadership, craft a
health exception that we could all accept. The Republican leadership
refused.
The President will sign this bill if it protects the health of the
mother, but the Republican leadership will not even give us a chance to
make this change. Let me repeat, the President will sign this bill if
it contains an exception to protect the health of the mother, but the
GOP leadership refuses to put one in. So the Republicans,
unfortunately, would rather debate this issue again and again and again
rather than send the President a bill that he could sign.
Madam Speaker, this bill is not about reducing abortions. It is about
defeating Democrats. This is election-year politics, plain and simple.
But do not take my word for it. Leading GOP strategist Ralph Reed
called this ``a winning gold-plated issue.'' A winning gold-plated
issue. Is that not unfortunate that that is why we are here today.
I heard reference in the debate before to liberals. In fact, two of
my colleagues, my good friends, refer to people who oppose this ban as
liberals. I just want to tell my colleagues, as a woman, that when you
are there making this very difficult decision, and we have seen these
women come to my offices to discuss the decision that they had to make
to preserve their future fertility, they were not making this decision
with their family, with their physician, with the member of their
clergy, as a Democrat, as a Republican, as a conservative or a liberal.
They were making this decision as a woman in distress who had to make a
very, very difficult decision.
I think it is time for us to stop playing politics with the lives and
health of American women. We must ensure that women have access to
abortion if their lives and health are endangered.
So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whose health
would you sacrifice? Which one of us? Which of our daughters is
expendable? The health of every woman in this Nation is precious. Each
of us, mothers, wives, daughters, is irreplaceable.
Women like Tammy Watts, Claudia Addes, Maureen Britel, these women
testified before Congress that this procedure protected their lives and
health. 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. How demeaning to a woman to even consider that
that is an option. They did not abort because their prom dresses did
not fit. They chose to become mothers and only terminated their
pregnancies because of tragic circumstances.
So who in this chamber will stand in the operating room and limit
their options? Who, at this agonizing moment, will decide? Who will
make that difficult decision, the Congress of the United States or the
woman, families, physicians, and members of the clergy of America?
{time} 1345
The courts have been very clear on this point. Bans like this one
have been passed in 28 states. Court challenges have been initiated in
20. In 18 state courts, there have been partially or fully enjoined
bans on constitutional grounds. The courts have found that these laws
ban most safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy.
Courts have found that the bans are vague, they fail to protect the
health of the mother and they are unconstitutional. The legislation
before us is also clearly unconstitutional.
I want to conclude by stating that we believe strongly in the right
to choose, but we also recognize that rights confer responsibilities as
well. No woman
[[Page H6209]]
terminates a pregnancy casually. No woman makes this decision lightly.
Madam Speaker, we have to trust the women of America to exercise this
right thoughtfully, deliberately, judiciously, and we must empower them
to do so responsibly. We must trust the women of America, not the
government. We have to trust the women of America to make this very,
very personal choice.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to say no. Put your faith in the
women of America, not in this Congress, to make this very, very
personal decision.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 15 minutes.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman
for allocating so much time to me. I hope and pray I do not use it all.
I know I express the feelings of everyone in the chamber that I do not
use it all.
I also want to say at the outset that I will not yield, and I would
appreciate the courtesy of not being interrupted, because I do not
choose to yield.
I also want to briefly respond to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I do not know any one I admire more than
she. This is a soul-wrenching issue. Your passion, your commitment, is
respected on my side, and certainly by me, and all I ask is that you
respect our passion and our commitment, because people of goodwill can
be on both sides of this issue.
That is the wonder and the beauty of this debate, that we are here
today talking about the most fundamental issues, life and death, health
versus a life. That is the problem. You are trading apples and oranges,
or chickens and horses. A life and health.
To me if you put those on the scale, life weighs heavier. Health has
been defined by the Supreme Court almost amorphously. It is a state of
well-being. Roe v. Wade and the other case, Doe v. Bolton, they defined
health for us in the most poetic way, a state of well-being.
So the problem is, if health is an exception and the abortionist
defines what is an impairment of health, I would suggest that the
little unborn ought to have an Independent Counsel, because there is a
conflict of interest there between the abortionist finding that a
woman's health will be impaired. So it is not a simple question.
Demeaning to women? Over half the children that are aborted are
women. I do not want to demean women; my God, no. I was married for 45
years. I have had a mother, a sister, a daughter. I never would want to
demean women. But I do not want to trivialize the unborn either.
Now, I go through life trying to offend as few people as possible,
and I do not always succeed. I may offend some people today, because I
want to talk about slavery. I am keenly aware that there are some
people who resent bitterly any discussion of slavery or the Holocaust,
emphasizing the uniqueness, the singularity of those two realities that
are part of our human history, and saying that nothing can compare to
them in evil, and I agree.
I think slavery is absolutely unique in its horror and in its evil,
and I think the Holocaust similarly is unique. But there are lessons to
be learned. History is nothing if it does not teach us something. I
analogize, I do not compare; I look for the common thread in slavery,
the Holocaust and abortion, and, to me, the common thread is
dehumanizing people. I intend to make that point, because I think we
have to learn from history, so that at least in this context, past will
not be prologue.
So I would like to tell you about a recent movie I saw called
Amistad, named after a Spanish sailing ship used in the African slave
trade in 1839, where some 39 survivors of the mutiny find themselves in
a legal battle before the United States Supreme Court. It is based on a
true story, and they are represented by an elderly, infirm John Quincy
Adams, played magnificently by Anthony Hopkins.
Adams' summation to the Supreme Court struck me as remarkably
appropriate to the issue before us today. Adams tells the justices that
this is the most important case ever to come before the court because
it concerns the very nature of man. Of course, that was the central
issue in debating the legitimacy, the morality of slavery, namely, the
humanity of the slave. Is the slave a chattel, mere property, to be
bought and sold? Or is he or she a human being with human rights?
We here today make the same argument, that that little, almost-born
baby, whose tiny arms and legs are flailing, whose little chest harbors
a beating heart, is a human being, with human rights, even if his or
her human life can be snuffed out by the plunge of the abortionist's
surgical scissors into the back of her tiny neck.
Yes, partial birth abortion concerns the very nature of man.
Later Adams stands near a framed copy of the Declaration of
Independence and he asks the question that we who support preborn life
have been asking for years. Looking at the Declaration, he says, ``What
of this annoying document? This Declaration of Independence? What of
its conceits, all men created equal, inalienable rights, life, liberty
and so on. What on earth are we to do with this?''
He then says he has a modest suggestion, and he takes a copy of the
Declaration and tears it up.
A tall, impressive man, Cinque, exuding strength, is the leader of
the slaves, and he has told John Quincy Adams that in his tribe in
Sierra Leone, the Mende, when they encounter a hopeless situation, they
call on their ancestors.
Adams tells the court this belief, that if they summon the spirits of
their ancestors, their wisdom and strength will come to their aid. He
then points to Cinque and speaks of his ancestors, from the beginning
of time, and tells the court that this man, Cinque, is the whole reason
his ancestors have ever existed at all.
When you think about it, each of us has ancestors that go back to the
beginning of time, and we, here now, are the whole reason they ever
existed. We are their progeny, we are their culmination. And just think
of what our ancestors had to endure through the long and bloody
centuries, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, conquest, slaughter,
famine and death, wars and plagues, natural disasters. And they
survived it all, so that we might be born here and now, to debate the
issue of partial-birth abortion.
So we have this little infant, arms flailing, legs squirming, little
heart pounding away, and, with the plunge of the abortionist's surgical
scissors, in a painful and cruel instant, that ancestral odyssey
through the centuries is extinguished.
Think of Whittier's great lines:
Of all the sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these;
``It might have been.''
Loneliness. We all know something about loneliness. It is one of
life's most mournful experiences. We have all been lonely, and it
teaches us how much we humans need each other.
What a special loneliness it must be for that little almost-born baby
to be surrounded by people who want to kill him. I stand in awe of
anyone who could perform, much less participate in, such a grisly
inhuman act. It must take a heart of stone and a soul of ice.
A vote against this motion to override is to legitimize thousands of
acts of appalling cruelty, not to an animal, a creature of the sea or
of the forest, but a fellow human being who has the misfortune to be
temporarily unwanted. You have this chance today to put an end to the
process of unspeakable destructive cruelty, unworthy of a civilized
society.
Our beloved America is becoming ``The Killing Fields.'' One state has
accepted euthanasia, so the elderly can be killed legally, and the
abortion culture has resulted in 35 million abortions since Roe v. Wade
in 1973. Kill them in the womb, and now, with partial birth abortion,
kill them out of the womb, but keep killing them.
Those whose real agenda is to keep all types of abortion legal, at
any stage, for any reason, have built their case on one lie after
another. There is no polite way to say this. Deceptive? Misinformation?
If one wants to be intellectually honest, you have to call a lie what
it is.
[[Page H6210]]
First they claim this procedure did not exist. When a paper written
by the doctor who invented it surfaced, they changed their story,
asserting it was only used when a woman's life was in danger. But then
the same doctor admitted that 80 percent of his partial-birth abortions
were elective.
Then they lied about anesthesia. Planned Parenthood told us the baby
does not feel any pain. The anesthesia given to the mother transfers
itself in the womb to the baby, and the baby does not feel any pain.
The anesthesiologists went off the wall, because that frightened
women into thinking their babies are at risk if they get anesthesia,
and the anesthesiologists came in and testified that was a falsehood,
and they shot this down in a hurry.
The Executive Director of the National Abortion Federation admitted
on Nightline, and these are his words, that he had ``lied through his
teeth'' about this procedure, thousands of them are performed on
healthy little babies, and he was distressed at the loss of credibility
the abortion cause was suffering because of the lies.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reacted to the President's
veto with this statement: ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by
his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction. Such a
procedure can not truthfully be called `medically necessary' for either
mother or the baby.''
Gee, the administration listens to Dr. Koop on tobacco. I wish they
would listen to him on partial-birth abortion.
For over two centuries of our national history, we have struggled to
create a society of inclusion. We keep widening the circle for those
for whom we are responsible, the aged, the infirm, the poor. Slaves
were freed, women were enfranchised; civil rights and voting rights
acts were passed; our public spaces were made accessible to the
handicapped; Social Security for the elderly, all in the name of
widening the circle of inclusion and protection.
This great trajectory in our national history has been shattered by
Roe v. Wade and its progeny. By denying an entire class of human beings
the welcome and the protection of our laws, we have betrayed what is
best in our tradition. We have also put at risk every life which some
day someone might find inconvenient.
Madam Speaker, we cannot repair the damage to our culture done by Roe
v. Wade. We cannot undo the injustice done to 35 million tiny babies
who have been exterminated because seven Justices, strip mining the
Constitution, found a right to abortion that no one had ever seen for
200 years.
{time} 1400
We cannot unring the bell, we cannot undo that injustice, but we can
stop the barbaric butchery of partial-birth abortion. We betray our own
humanity if we do not.
Matthew 25 is often read at Catholic funeral masses. It is a lovely
passage. ``I was hungry and you fed me; I was naked and you clothed me;
I was a stranger and you took me in.''
That is what I ask for here today. Welcome the little stranger. Vote
to override.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to general leave I request the
following remarks be inserted in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the bill H.R. 1122.
Imagine that you--or your wife--or your daughter, learned when she is
seven 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, you 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.
Women's lives and health must be protected. This bill is
unconstitutional, because it contains no exception providing for the
physical health of the mother. And that is why we should vote against
it. Roe v. 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.
Courts across the country have continued to reaffirm Roe's holding
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.'' Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-65, 93 S. Ct. At 732. Without such an
exception, this legislation could jeopardize women's health.
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.
We must make abortion less necessary, not more difficult. But the
reality is, this 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. And it will
encourage states to attempt to outlaw abortion at any and every stage.
It is this effort that is becoming a trend among anti-choice
proponents across the country. One need only look to the case of
Wisconsin, where for a few days no woman was able to obtain an
abortion, in order to see the true breadth of this ban. In mid-May, an
anti-choice judge refused to grant a temporary injunction against the
state's ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban.'' Upon learning of this decision,
abortion providers in Wisconsin refused to provide any abortion for
fear of prosecution under this broad ban. Fortunately, the Seventh
Circuit Court overruled the judge and the health of Wisconsin women is
once again protected.
It is clear that H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional. State versions of
partial birth abortion bans, have been blocked or limited by eighteen
federal and state courts. Many of these cases involve laws modeled
after H.R. 1122. Based on these decisions, it is clear that H.R. 1122
is unconstitutional.
As of July 9, 1998, 28 states have enacted legislation banning so-
called ``partial birth abortion'' or other abortion procedures. Court
challenges regarding these laws have been initiated thus far in 20
states. In 18 of those, courts have partially or fully enjoined the
laws. In 7 of those 18, courts have permanently enjoined the laws.
Only three courts have not enjoined state ``partial birth abortion
bans'' when they have looked at the statutes. However, in Alabama,
which is one of the three states, the court has not ruled on the
merits, but the Alabama Attorney General has directed the state's
district attorneys to enforce the statute only after viability. The
Alabama court did not rule on the merits of the case at this time,
because the court was very unclear about the meaning of various terms
in the statute, such as the meaning of a ``partial birth abortion.'' As
a result, the court will not issue a final ruling, pending further
explanation about the meaning of the statute from the Alabama Supreme
Court Summit Medical Associates v. James, 984 F. Supp. 1404 (M.D. Ala.
1998). This decision is further evidence that courts are having a hard
time interpreting the unconstitutionally vague language of so called
``partial birth abortion bans.''
And in Virginia, a single Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay of a preliminary injunction
issued by the district court, allowing the law to go into effect.
(Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, No. 98-1930 (4th Cir.
June 30, 1998) (Luttig, Cir. Judge). This makes Virginia the only state
where a Court has gone against the grain and overturned a preliminary
injunction against a ban.
But in the majority of cases, there is no question that courts have
overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that so called ``partial-birth
abortion'' statutes are patently unconstitutional. Some of the language
from these cases is especially illustrative. For instance, a federal
district judge in Arizona held that Arizona's statute, which was
modeled on H.R. 1122, ``unconstitutionally burdens a woman's right to
[[Page H6211]]
terminate a nonviable fetus, and that the Act is void for vagueness in
that it does not sufficiently define the conduct which is attempts to
proscribe.'' Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Woods, 982. F.
Supp. 1396 (D. Ariz. 1997).
In Iowa, a court held that the statute that was modeled after H.R.
1122 was unconstitutional because it ``likely infringes on the
constitutional rights of women . . . the protection of constitutional
rights clearly outweighs any interest the state may have in promoting
the interests of the fetus with a statute that is unconstitutional.''
Planned Parenthood v. Miller and Niebyl v. Miller, Civ. No. 4-98-CV-
90149, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9851 (D.S.D. Iowa, June 26, 1998).
In addition, most of the medical and legal experts who have reviewed
the legislation note that it is extremely vague and broad and as a
result, may outlaw abortion procedures at ANY stage of pregnancy. In
fact, in my home state of Michigan, on July 31, 1997, federal District
Court 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. Evans v. Kelley, 977 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 1997).
Moreover, the court found that the state law unduly burdened women's
ability to obtain an abortion, in violation of the undue burden
analysis established in the Supreme Court's landmark case of Casey v.
Planned Parenthood, where the Court held that at least pre-viability,
states may not place an undue burden on the right of women to choose to
end a pregnancy. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 50 U.S. 833 (1992). The
judge noted that ``the Michigan Legislature rejected every attempt to
narrow and more specifically define the sweep of its statute, and as a
result, produced a law clearly violative of Supreme Court precedent.''
It is clear that this bill violates that well established
constitutional law long-settled by Roe. An Arizona court also found the
same thing.
This purposeful vagueness can only be interpreted as an effort to
outlaw other abortion and obstetric techniques as well. As recently as
February 12, 1998, a District Court in Illinois found, ``The Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to
give fair notice of the conduct that is prohibited.'' Hope Clinic et
al. v. Ryan, No. 97C8702 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Let's take the politicians out of this intensely personal issue. When
it comes to a women's life or health, Washington doesn't always know
best.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I do not favor late term abortions. I
believe they should only be permitted to preserve the life of the
mother or to prevent serious consequences to her health. Unfortunately,
the bill we are considering today, like the similar bill I opposed last
year, does not protect a woman's life or serious risk to her health.
I support legislation, H.R. 1032, the Late Term Abortion Restriction
Act, which would ban all late term abortions, whether ``partial birth''
or by other procedures, except in cases where in the medical judgment
of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the
life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to
the woman.
I believe such a prohibition on late term abortion would pass
scrutiny by the courts and be held constitutional by the Supreme Court
which has ruled that during the period known as ``post viability''
states may limit abortions, except in cases where the mother's life or
health are at serious risk.
The positive solution to this very difficult issue is not to continue
considering the same legislation, but to allow the Late Term Abortion
Restriction Act to be considered on the floor of the House.
Mr. PACKARD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of efforts to
overturn the President's veto of H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban, which the President vetoed last October.
Madam Speaker, I have always believed that any abortion is a tragedy.
The fact that abortions are so prevalent in America today is a clear
indication of how poor a job we are doing at teaching the importance
and value of human life. It's hard for me to comprehend how a person
could come to such a decision, given the thousands of parents who are
desperate to adopt healthy babies.
While I understand that there are those with differing opinions on
this sensitive issue, it remains impossible for me to understand how
anyone can defend the practice known as partial birth abortion. Partial
birth abortion is one of the most abhorrent procedures I have ever
heard of. It is barbaric and has absolutely no place in a civilized
society.
Most Americans agree that partial birth abortions are unjustified. In
fact, several of our pro-choice colleagues have even drawn the line
when it comes to allowing this to continue. Even the American Medical
Association has endorsed our efforts to ban partial birth abortions.
Madam Speaker, the President is simply out of touch with the great
majority of Americans on this issue. I am hopeful that my colleagues
will join me in overriding the President's veto of H.R. 1122, and end
this horrible practice forever.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I come to
this floor everyday to debate a wide range of legislation in
anticipation that what we do will indeed help to improve the lives of
our fellow citizens and hopefully strengthen this great democracy of
ours. While we will always face tremendous social and economic
challenges, there is no greater threat to our nation than the disregard
we hold for our unborn children. Sadly, our President and many members
of this body continue to defend the indefensible practice of partial
birth abortion. Abortion at all stages is indeed a tragedy and has
served to cheapen the value of life in this country and throughout the
world. As long as this nation condones the legalized killing of
millions of preborn babies, we will continue to struggle with its
consequences, including the senseless acts of violence committed by our
youth. The defenders of partial-birth abortions wish to perpetuate the
evil myth that this procedure must be available to protect the health
of a mother in rare occasions.
Fortunately, the truth now shines on this dreadful practice. The
President and his advisors can choose to rationalize their defense of
partial birth abortions, but we need to look no further than to our
medical professionals who have spoken out against this outrageous
procedure. To quote our former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the
Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, ``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.''
Madam Speaker, I am heartened by the House's action today to stand
firm for the sanctity of life in its decision to override the
President's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It is my
fervent hope that the Senate will respond in kind and support this
noble effort.
Mr. KOLBE. Madam Speaker, over the past several months, Congress and
the American people have endured a wrenching debate concerning the
issue of ``partial-birth'' abortions. Like most Americans, I do not
support abortion on demand. In fact, I am opposed to any late term
abortion by whatever method, unless it is performed to save the life of
the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her health.
The Congressional debate has centered, thus far, around legislation
introduced by Congressman Charles Canady, H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth
Abortion Act of 1997. This bill would federalize the regulation of
abortion, a matter historically left to the discretion of the states.
And, for the first time in medical history, it would ban a specific
procedure, known medically as a dilation and extraction (D&X). I could
not support this legislation when it came to the floor of the House of
Representatives earlier because of its uncompromising language banning
this specific late term abortion method even in a case where a
pregnancy goes tragically wrong and the woman's health is placed in
serious peril.
Recognizing the need for some answers in a debate that has generated
more heat than light, I joined my colleagues, Congressman Jim Greenwood
and Steny Hoyer, as a cosponsor of a bill which would prohibit all
late-term abortions, regardless of the method used to terminate the
abortion. This bill, H.R. 1032, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act,
applies to all abortions performed after ``viability'', defined as that
time when a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. The bill
provides an exception only in cases where it is necessary to save the
life of the woman or to avert serious adverse consequences to her
health.
Unlike H.R. 1122, I believe this legislation correctly puts the
emphasis on when abortions are performed, not how they are performed.
It does not try to put Congress in the inappropriate role of
determining the correctness of one particular medical procedure.
Instead, this bill makes it clear that throughout the course of a
pregnancy, prior to viability, medical decisions regarding a woman's
personal care and treatment must lie with the patient, her physician,
and her family--not lawmakers in Washington.
H.R. 1032, which I support, would prohibit all post viability
abortions even if the woman suddenly decided she no longer wanted the
child or was emotionally unable to care for a child. I cannot and I
will not justify a late term abortion in these instances. However, when
an abortion is medically necessary, I want every woman to have
available to her the procedure that is the safest.
Today, we are here to vote to override the President's veto of H.R.
1122, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; however, I will not vote to
override that veto since H.R. 1122 does not include an exception for
situations where the mother's health or life is in danger. I will
continue, however, to work to pass legislation to ban all late term
abortions while protecting the life of the mother.
[[Page H6212]]
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
override of H.R. 1122, the ``late term'' abortion ban and I ask my
colleagues to sustain the President's veto.
Madam Speaker, this bill has been vetoed twice by the President
because it fails to protect a woman's health and fertility. Once again,
conservative Members of this body are encroaching on a very private,
personal matter by infringing on a woman's constitutionally protected
right to make a personal decision regarding her personal health.
Madam Speaker, the issue isn't about how many women undergo this
procedure, but how many women have no other alternative but this
procedure to save their life and reproductive health.
This bill challenges the Roe versus Wade decision to protect a
woman's right to choose. It supersedes safeguards in the Constitution
which protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy of a viable
fetus if an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the
mother. The Roe decisions says that a state may ``regulate, and even
proscribe, abortion'' except when a woman's life or health is
threatened. Mr. Speaker, the authors of this legislation failed to
incorporate the need to protect a mother's health into this
legislation.
The terms of this bill are so loose that 18 courts have struck down
or severely limited enforcement of the ``late term'' abortion ban.
Respected judges from around the county have rule that the definition
in the ban is both vague and overly broad which has resulted in the ban
of some of the most safe and common abortion procedures used throughout
pregnancy. An undue burden is placed on a woman's right to choose and
on a doctor's ability to practice safe medicine.
All of these restrictions on abortion will only make abortions more
dangerous. Let us protect not only the privacy and personal choice
between a woman and her doctor, but also the rights outlined in the
Supreme Court's decision, Roe versus Wade.
I ask my colleagues to support and maintain the right of a doctor to
determine which is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure
based on a woman's individual circumstance within the protection of Roe
versus Wade.
Madam Speaker, Congress has no business coming between a woman and
her doctor. When making a medical decision, doctors should not be faced
with the threat of imprisonment for having to perform a procedure to
save a mother's life or protect her reproductive health. The tragedy
behind this unfortunate situation is that most women who undergo this
difficult procedure desperately want a successful pregnancy. Listen to
the women who have been faced with this tragic situation.
Recently, I learned of a sad story about Kim and Barrett Koster of
Iowa who enthusiastically awaited the birth of their son. In addition
to Kim being diabetic which makes healing more difficult, the couple
was faced with the devastating diagnosis that their son would be born
without a brain stem. The dilation and extraction method was their only
option. Kim and Barrett and their failed pregnancy are a perfect
example of the need for access to safe medical procedures.
Madam Speaker, let us refrain from legislating the work of a medical
professional and refrain from jeopardizing the lives of mothers. I urge
my colleagues to vote to sustain this veto.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, in debating the ban on partial
birth abortion we have heard several different versions of the facts
regarding the number of partial birth abortion procedures performed
each year. Similar debate has focused on whether or not the procedure
is performed on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers.
According to the Centers for Disease Control latest statistics, 1.3%
of the abortions performed in 1994 were performed after the 21st week
of gestation. According to the Alan Gutmacher Institute only .4%
(5,070) of legal abortions were performed after the 24th week of
gestation, the point at which most physicians agree viability begins.
These facts tell us that late term abortion is not common. No
statistics are available for the number of partial birth abortion
procedures performed but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if this
procedure is performed after viability on healthy fetuses in healthy
mothers it is too many and we should stop it and the Supreme Court has
told us that we may stop it after viability except in certain
circumstances.
I have been committed throughout my career in Congress to protecting
the reproductive health and rights of women. But the partial birth
abortion procedure should not be protected as a reproductive right. It
is an extremist procedure created by anti-choice extremists to destroy
the credibility of moderate pro-choice activists. It is not protected
by the Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade or in Casey versus Planned
Parenthood and it should not be protected by Congress. This procedure
is performed after fetal viability on the healthy babies of healthy
mothers and it should be stopped.
I will continue to fight hard for women's reproductive freedoms;
freedoms that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution and restated by
the Supreme Court. But I cannot condone this procedure. I support a
vote override of the President's veto and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. BARCIA. Madam Speaker, here we go again. We are voting on the
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act although a majority of the American
people clearly do not support this gruesome procedure. We should not be
here debating whether or not this procedure should or should not be
legal. Clearly, this procedure should be illegal and 28 states have
passed laws making this so.
We should not be here again debating this issue. Instead, we should
be supporting efforts to decrease abortions, such as abstinence, which
has worked very well in Michigan. I am proud to say that Michigan's
abortion rate decreased by 2.3 percent. Although this is a good trend,
sadly people who choose abortion in 1997 ended 29,528 babies' lives.
Instead, we should be supporting the medical miracles that are taking
place. One of my newest constituents was a candidate for a partial
birth abortion. Instead, after only 20 weeks in his mother's womb, he
underwent surgery to save his life. The doctors performed an amazing
surgery and my constituent was born, a little early, but is a healthy
little boy.
I urge my colleagues here, in the House, and in the other body, to
override the veto and save the lives of those innocent children who
have not yet witnessed this cynical world where we take the miracle of
life for granted.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be determined by the yeas and
nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296,
nays 132, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 325]
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 (TX)
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
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
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)
Lewis (KY)
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
[[Page H6213]]
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
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
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
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
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
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kolbe
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
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--7
Brady (PA)
Ford
Gonzalez
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Serrano
Young (FL)
{time} 1422
So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the
House.
____________________