[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3829-H3830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 457, 
I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1692) to amend 
title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of S. 1692 is as follows:

                                S. 1692

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentionally--
       ``(A) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the 
     person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially 
     outside the body of the mother; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the 
     intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother.
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, illness or injury.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ROE V. WADE AND PARTIAL 
                   BIRTH ABORTION BANS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973)); and
       (2) no partial birth abortion ban shall apply to a partial-
     birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother 
     whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or 
     injury.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that partial birth abortions are horrific and gruesome 
     procedures that should be banned.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING A WOMAN'S LIFE AND 
                   HEALTH.

       It is the sense of the Congress that, consistent with the 
     rulings of the Supreme Court, a woman's life and health must 
     always be protected in any reproductive health legislation 
     passed by Congress.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) reproductive rights are central to the ability of women 
     to exercise their full rights under Federal and State law;
       (2) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973));
       (3) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 
     established constitutionally based limits on the power of 
     States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy; and
       (4) women should not be forced into illegal and dangerous 
     abortions as they often were prior to the Roe v. Wade 
     decision.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and secures an 
     important constitutional right; and
       (2) such decision should not be overturned.


                Motion Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Canady of Florida moves to strike all after the 
     enacting clause of the bill, S. 1692, and to insert in lieu 
     thereof the text of the bill, H.R. 3660, as passed by the 
     House.

  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.


                       Motion To Go To Conference

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I offer a 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Canady of Florida moves that the House insist on its 
     amendment to the bill, S. 1692, and request a conference with 
     the Senate thereon.

  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate bill, S. 1692, be 
     instructed to meet promptly with the managers on the part of 
     the Senate on all issues committed to conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XX, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) each 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the current motion 
to recommit by Mr. Conyers.
  Like the House Bill that was unfortunately passed in April, this act, 
despite its title is nothing more than an attempt to inhibit a woman's 
constitutional right to choose.
  Although the majority conveniently skirts the issue of the 1973 
Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, this law is still in effect and 
we must recognize a woman's right to have an abortion especially if her 
life is threatened.
  Yes, it is true that technological advancement in the medical field 
has enabled women to better monitor their pregnancies so that they may 
bring healthy children into this world. However, some pregnancies may 
involve problems that may threaten the life and/or health of the 
mother.
  For example, continuing the pregnancy may result in severe heart 
disease, malignancies and kidney failure. In these situations, when a 
woman is faced with a life or death decision,

[[Page H3830]]

she must have the right to make a choice whether to continue her 
pregnancy.
  The procedure referred to in S. 1692/H.R. 3660 has been used to 
protect the mother's life but many times these late term abortions are 
primarily done when the abnormalities of the fetus are so extreme that 
independent life is not possible.
  Many times in the issue of abortion we tend to glorify a potential 
life but refuse to acknowledge the actual living human being that has 
conceived that life.
  This actual living human being has rights enumerated in the 
Constitution that can not be infringed upon regardless of what type of 
abortion is being performed especially if it is to save the life of 
mother.
  If society picks and chooses which type of abortion one should have 
then once again we are taking away the right of a woman to choose.
  If this conference report is supported by the majority, this S. 1692/
H.R. 3660 would put the government in the doctor's office and leave the 
health of women unprotected.
  I would be amiss if I did not highlight the fact that the terminology 
being employed by proponents of this bill is a term with absolutely no 
medical or scientific meaning.
  On the contrary, this term is a being used solely to enrange and 
misguide the public. In fact, this term was actually adopted from a 
speech given by an anti-abortion advocate. Hence, the attempt to 
assuage our concerns that this legislation is not an attempt to 
circumvent a woman's constitutional right is simply untrue.
  Therefore, I will not use this propagandist term ``partial birth'' 
abortion, but instead give this bill the title it deserves, the 
``Abortion Ban of 2000.''
  S. 1692/H.R. 3660 is another attempt to put politics before women's 
health. The overwhelming majority of courts have to have ruled on 
challenges to state so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' bans have 
declared those bans unconstitutional.
  Despite the passage of abortion bans in state legislatures throughout 
the country, on election day in both 1998 and 1999, ballot initiatives 
that would have enacted this type of law were defeated in Washington, 
Colorado and finally Maine. The people of this country do no support 
this type of law.
  In fact, only 12 states have abortion bans in effect, but 9 of these 
states have not yet been challenged.
  Furthermore, Six federal district courts have issued permanent 
injunctions against statutes virtually identical to S. 1692/H.R. 3660 
and the Supreme Court is set to decide on this issue in Stenberg v. 
Carhart.
  I agree with my democratic colleagues that any action by Congress 
would be premature and even mooted by the Court's decision.
  Notwithstanding the potentially mootness of this discussion, 
proponents of this legislation not only mischaracterize the reasons 
underlying the use of late term abortions, but they failed to even 
recognize the constitutional rights espoused by the Supreme Court in 
roe and reaffirmed in Casey.
  The ambiguity of this legislation further frustrates the rights of 
women in the Nation and chills legitimately protected rights.
  This legislation could essentially ban more one type of procedure 
because is fails to distinguish between abortions before and after 
viability.
  These are just some of the many problems with S. 1692/H.R. 3660 and 
these alone should make anyone question the appropriateness of such 
legislation.
  We can not straddle the fence on this issue. It is either to protect 
the rights of women or take them away completely.
  Women have fought hard and long to have autonomy over their bodies 
and by putting restrictions on what type of abortions she is allowed to 
receive would put women back in the era of Pre-Roe v. Wade.
  By banning partial birth abortions not only are we taking the right 
of women to have autonomy over their bodies and the right of families 
to determine their future, but we are also taking the right of women to 
live their lives as healthy American citizens and treating them like 
prisoners in their own country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have no speakers, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the motion 
to instruct conferees, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                        Appointment of Conferees

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Hyde, Canady of Florida, Goodlatte, 
Conyers, and Watt of North Carolina.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________