[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.

                          ____________________