[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 82 (Thursday, June 10, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1220]]
          HOYER-GREENWOOD BILL RESTRICTING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 10, 1999

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, abortion is one of the most difficult and 
divisive issues facing the public today. Like most Americans, I would 
prefer that there were no abortions. Also, like most Americans, I 
believe the decision is one that is for the woman and family involved, 
not the Government.
  However, I oppose late-term abortions, except for the most serious 
and compelling of reasons. I am specifically and adamantly opposed to 
what some refer to as ``abortion-on-demand''--after the time of 
viability. For that reason, I and others have introduced the ``Late 
Term Abortion Restriction Act of 1999.''
  The specific intent of this legislation is to adopt as Federal 
policy, a prohibition on post-viability, late-term abortions. Critics 
of this legislation point out that there are exceptions. They are 
correct. We believe that in the event that the mother's life is in 
danger or where the continuation of the pregnancy will pose a threat of 
serious, adverse health consequences to the woman, then and only then 
can this prohibition on late-term abortions be overcome.
  I introduced this legislation in both the 104th and the 105th 
Congress. I did so then because I am opposed to abortions being 
performed after the viability of a fetus, except for the most serious 
of health risks if the pregnancy is continued.
  This prohibition is similar to restrictions on late-term abortions in 
41 of our States, including my own State of Maryland. Those States 
believed that it was appropriate policy to prohibit late-term abortions 
``on demand.'' We share that view.
  Those who oppose abortion under almost all circumstances at any time 
during the course of pregnancy have criticized this legislation as 
meaningless. They do so because they believe that some doctors will 
contrive reasons to justify a late-term abortion. I do not doubt that 
may happen. But if it does, it will be illegal under this act and 
subject the doctor to the penalties set forth in the bill and to such 
professional sanctions as are imposed by the appropriate medical 
societies and regulatory bodies.
  This legislation is much broader than the partial-birth abortion 
bills introduced by others in the 104th and 105th Congress. Those bills 
and the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1999 recently introduced in the 
Senate had and continue to have at their purpose, the elimination of a 
particular procedure to effect an abortion at any time during the 
course of the pregnancy.
  To that extent it is inaccurate and misleading to define it as many 
proponents and press reports have, as a prohibition on late-term 
abortions. It is both much narrower and, at the same time, broader than 
that. It is my belief that its terms would not prohibit the performance 
of a single abortion. They would simply be performed by a different 
procedure.
  Congressman Jim Greenwood and I are introducing this legislation 
today with 14 other bipartisan original cosponsors. This bill, in 
contrast to the partial birth abortion bills, would prohibit all late-
term post-viability abortions by whatever method or procedure that 
would be employed. While there are exceptions to this general 
prohibition, we believe that our bill will, in fact, prohibit all post-
viability, late-term abortions that are not the result of a serious 
cause.
  This legislation establishes a clear Federal policy against late-term 
abortions. We would hope that the Judiciary Committee would hold an 
early hearing on this legislation and bring it to the floor so that the 
Federal Government could adopt this sensible prohibition, which is 
similar to that adopted by over 80 percent of the States. They did so 
because their legislatures wanted to make it clear that late-term 
abortions were, in almost all circumstances, against public policy and 
against the law.
  We should do the same.

                          ____________________