[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8154-H8162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4292) to protect infants who are born alive.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4292
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 ``Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual'
as including born-alive infant
``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or
of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the
words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual',
shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens
who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with
respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion
or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
section, or induced abortion.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
[[Page H8155]]
``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
{time} 1915
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4292, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a
simple but critical piece of legislation that is designed to ensure
that, for purposes of Federal law, all infants who have been born alive
are treated as persons who are entitled to the protections of the law.
We may ask why such a legislation is necessary. Has it not been long
accepted as a legal principle that infants who are born alive are
persons who are entitled to the protections of the law? Indeed it has.
But the corrupting influence of a seemingly illimitable right to
abortion has brought this well-settled principle into question.
Mr. Speaker, in Stenberg v. Carhart, five Justices of the United
States Supreme Court struck down a Nebreska law banning partial-birth
abortion, a gruesome procedure in which an abortionist delivers an
unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the mother, then
punctures the back of the child's skull with scissors and sucks the
child's brains out before completing the delivery. Every time I
describe that horrible procedure, I wince because it is truly a horror.
But that is what the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking
through five Justices has found is protected by our Constitution.
What was described in Roe v. Wade as a right to abort unborn children
has now in Carhart been extended by five Justices to include the
violent destruction of partially-born children just inches from birth.
Even more striking than the simple holding of the case is the fact
that the Carhart Court considered the location of the infant's body at
the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion delivered partly
outside the body of the mother to be of no legal significance in ruling
on the constitutionality of the Nebraska law under challenge.
Implicit in the Carhart decision was the notion that a partial-born
infant's entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent not
upon whether the child is born or unborn, but upon whether or not the
partially born child's mother wants the child.
On July 26, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit made that point explicit in Planned Parenthood of Central New
Jersey v. Farmer, in the course of striking down New Jersey partial-
birth abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
under Row and Carhart, it is, and I quote them, nonsensical, and
``based on semantic machinations'' and ``irrational line-drawing'' for
a legislature to conclude that an infant's location in relation to the
mother's body has any relevance in determining whether that infant may
be killed.
Instead, the Farmer Court concluded that a child's status under the
law, regardless of the child's location, is dependent upon whether the
mother intends to abort the child or to give birth. The Farmer Court
stated that, in contrast to an infant whose mother intends to give
birth, an infant who is killed during a partial-birth abortion is not
entitled to the protections of the law because, and I quote, ``a woman
seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth.''
Now, if we examine the logical implications of these decisions, I
think we will be forced to the conclusion that they are indeed
shocking.
Under the logic of these decisions, once a child is marked for
abortion, it is wholly irrelevant whether that child emerges from the
womb as a live baby. That child may still be treated as a nonentity and
would not have the slightest rights under the law, no right to receive
medical care, to be sustained in life, or to receive any care at all.
And if a child who survives an abortion and is born alive would have no
claim to the protections of the law, there would appear to be no basis
upon which the government may prohibit an abortionist from completely
delivering an infant before killing it or allowing it to die.
The right to abortion under this logic means nothing less than the
right to a dead baby, no matter where the killing takes place.
We are familiar with the logic of the Supreme Court case. There they
said in order to protect the mother's health, the child could be killed
in the process of being delivered. It is not a far stretch for the
argument to also be made that it will help protect the mother's health
to deliver the baby completely before the child is delivered in
carrying out the decision for an abortion to be performed.
As horrifying as it may seem, credible public testimony received by
the Subcommittee on the Constitution indicates that this, in fact,
already is occurring. According to our eyewitness accounts, some
abortion doctors are performing live-birth abortions using a procedure
in which the abortionist used drugs to induce premature labor and
deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply
allow those who are born alive to die, sometimes without the provision
of even basic comfort care such as warmth and nutrition.
On one occasion, a nurse found a living infant lying naked on a scale
in a soiled utility closet, and on another occasion a living infant was
found lying naked on the edge of a sink; one baby was wrapped in a
disposable towel and thrown into the trash.
Mr. Speaker, Jill Stanek, a labor and delivery nurse at Christ
Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, testified regarding numerous live-birth
abortions that she has witnessed at Christ Hospital in Illinois. Ms.
Stanek described what happened after one of those abortions as follows,
and I quote her testimony at length, because it is so chilling and so
pertinent to the question that is before the House today. According to
Ms. Stanek's testimony: ``One night, a nursing coworker was taking an
aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our soiled utility
room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have
time to hold him. I could not bear the thoughts of this suffering child
dying alone in a soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for
the 45 minutes that he lived.
He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about one-half pound and was about
10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy
he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I could
not tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see
if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was
pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped
him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all
of our dead patients are taken.''
The Subcommittee on the Constitution also heard testimony from
Allison Baker, who formerly worked as a labor and delivery nurse at
Christ Hospital. Mrs. Baker testified regarding three live-birth
abortions at Christ Hospital, the first of which she described as
follows, this is what she told the Subcommittee on the Constitution:
``The first of these live-birth abortions occurred on a day shift. I
happened to walk into a soiled utility room and saw lying on the metal
counter a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and
legs. The fetus was visibly alive and was gasping for breath.
I left to find the nurse who was caring for the patient and this
fetus. When I asked her about the fetus, she said that she was so busy
with the mother that she didn't have time to wrap and place the fetus
in a warmer, and she asked if I could do that for her.
Later I found out that the fetus was 22 weeks old and had undergone a
therapeutic abortion because it had been diagnosed with Down's
Syndrome. I did wrap the fetus and placed him in a warmer and for 2\1/
2\ hours he maintained a heartbeat and then finally expired.''
Mr. Speaker, statements made by abortion supporters indicate that
they believe that Roe v. Wade denies the protection of the law to live-
born infants who have been marked for destruction through abortion. On
July 20 of this year, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League, or NARAL, issued a press release criticizing H.R. 4292,
the bill that we are considering tonight, because in
[[Page H8156]]
NARAL's view extending legal personhood to premature infants who are
born alive after surviving abortions constitutes an assault on Roe v.
Wade.
The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) took a similar position in her
testimony on H.R. 4292 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
The principle that born-alive infants are entitled to the protection
of the law is also being questioned at one of America's most
prestigious universities. Princeton University Bioethicist Peter Singer
argues that parents should have the option to kill disabled or
unhealthy newborn babies for a certain period after birth. According to
Professor Singer, and I quote him: ``A period of 28 days after birth
might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right
to live as others.''
Mr. Speaker, now this is based on Professor Singer's view that the
life of a newborn baby is, and again I quote him, ``of no greater value
than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality,
self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, et cetera.''
According to Professor Singer, and I again quote, ``killing a
disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very
often, it is not wrong at all.'' Mr. Speaker, now, these are the
comments that are being made by a renowned philosopher holding one of
the most prestigious chairs at one of this Nation's most prestigious
universities.
The purpose of this legislation is to repudiate the pernicious ideas
that result in tragedies such as live-birth abortion and to firmly
establish that, for purposes of Federal law, an infant who is
completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is
alive is indeed a person under the law regardless of whether or not the
child's development is believed to be or is, in fact, sufficient to
permit long-term survival and regardless of whether the baby survived
an abortion.
H.R. 4292 accomplishes this by providing that, for purposes of
Federal law, the word ``person,'' the words ``person, human being,
child and individual'' shall include every infant member of the species
homosapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. The bill
defines the term ``born alive'' as the complete expulsion or extraction
from its mother of that member of this species homosapiens at any stage
of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has
a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement
of the voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has
been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs
as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section or induced
abortion.
Now, I will point out to the Members of the House, and this is very
important to put this bill in context, that this definition of born
alive was derived from a model definition of live birth that has been
adopted with minor variations in 35 States and the District of
Columbia.
So the principle that is embodied in this bill is a principle that
has been codified by the majority of the States, and it is indeed the
law in the vast majority of the jurisdictions in this land. It is also
important to understand that this simply deals with the principle that
the child is a person who is born alive. It does nothing to alter the
applicable standard of care that is owed to a child in particular
circumstances.
Now, I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, consider the
recent decision of the Supreme Court, the recent decision of the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and support this important legislation and to
reject, to unequivocally reject the movement towards the legalization
of infanticide, which I submit to my colleagues is implicit in the
recent rulings that I have referred to. As Members of this House, we
should do everything we can to protect the most innocent and helpless
members of the human family.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a measure which is one of the most
puzzling bits of legislation to ever come out of the Committee on the
Judiciary. To make it more interesting, the entire committee has
supported this measure on a recorded vote except one person, one member
of the committee.
{time} 1930
As of a very recent date, we have taken out the manager's amendment,
which had been creating a considerable amount of confusion. Now, the
question at a threshold level is why do we have this bill before us. I
cannot answer that question clearly because we are not doing anything
new that is not already stated very clearly in statute and in the
Supreme Court cases.
Roe v. Wade is not affected by this bill. As a matter of fact,
Stenburg v. Carhart, notwithstanding many interpretations of this more
recent Supreme Court case, does not affect this measure either. So I
leave to more fertile imaginations why it is we are here in the first
place. But we are here.
And trying to ignore the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the
manager on the other side's sometimes hyperbolic rhetoric, this is
still the same measure that this Member voted for in committee. I stand
by my position, and I will continue to support it.
It is my belief that people who introduce legislation in the Congress
do it to get people to support it, they do not try to introduce
legislation to get people not to support it. We hope that that common
rule of long standing still applies this evening in this measure.
The bill makes a useful clarification of existing law. The bill
clarifies existing law to ensure that every protection for a child or
person in the United States Code applies to a born-alive infant. I
support that. Most of us believe that this bill is probably unnecessary
for the simple reason that born-alive infants are already protected by
existing law.
However, we have accepted the representations of the bill's sponsor
that this change is needed, that this legislation has a purpose in
fact. The sponsor has indicated that the bill would only protect an
infant who is completely separated from its mother. This is a most
unusual and, I think, significant concession by the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I must wholeheartedly applaud the majority for realizing at last that
there are different stages of life and that, at each stage, a mother's
right to privacy must be balanced against a State's interest and fetal
life.
Now, this measure bipartisanly has overwhelmingly passed the
committee, which is unusual given the strong feelings on each side of
the issue and on each side of the aisle regarding issues of
reproductive rights. But it seems to me that this measure is now back
to the precise original condition that was voted out by the committee.
This leaves the manager on this side with no other recourse but to
support the same measure that we passed in the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I am very pleased to be able to support it, but I must say
that it grieves me that I live in a Nation where it is even necessary
for us to promulgate such legislation. Nonetheless, I believe this
legislation is badly needed.
We have a situation evolving in our courts where legal doctrines are
being promoted that would countenance the practice of infanticide. The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) I think very clearly in his opening
statement cited many of those cases. I do not need to reiterate them
here.
Not only do we have a problem with legal doctrine, though, but we
have a problem with medical practice. I as a practicing physician for
years would unfortunately be asked to pronounce people dead. What we
were typically asked to do is to make a determination of brain waves or
a heart beat are present. These are clearly infants that meet those
criteria. They are human. They are alive. There are numerous cases
where they are being allowed to die. They are not being provided basic
subsist steps, not even kept warm.
I believe this is a tragedy that this should be evolving. Probably
more concerning to me, and it should be a concern to people in the
disabilities community, because if one hears all these cases, one hears
that many of these
[[Page H8157]]
children have disabilities. I think any Member, any person in this
country with a disability should support this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill say it is about
protecting newborns. We can all agree that newborns deserve appropriate
medical support and the fullest protection of the law no matter the
circumstances of delivery. In fact, newborn infants already receive
full legal protection in State and Federal law. Any attempt to harm a
newborn can and should be subject to criminal prosecution. Everyone
agrees on this.
Yet, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), my friend, has also
said that this bill would not change existing law and would have no
impact on medical standards of care. Then what is the rationale for
this bill?
Dr. Sessions Cole, who trained at Harvard Medical School, who is
board certified in pediatrics and has cared for more than 10,000
newborns directly, believes it would change the standard of care.
In testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. Cole stated
that the bill would ``impose on doctors and parents a universal
definition of `life' or `alive' which is,'' he said, ``in my experience
as a neonatologist, inconsistent with the harsh reality presented by a
number of circumstances.''
Dr. Cole went on to discuss the obligation of parents and doctors to
minimize the suffering an infant might endure once the decision is made
that life support or other measures would be futile for that infant.
I share his concern about the impact this law may have on parents who
desperately hope to bring home the healthy newborn and, instead, are
confronted with a tragic situation.
It is enough for these parents to listen carefully to the physician,
seek second or third opinions, hear counsel from their rabbi, priest,
or minister and discuss it with their families. Congress has no
business adding to their anguish or extending their grief by forcing
neonatologists to follow what Dr. Cole called an ``unnecessary and
unrealistic definition of life.''
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and other antichoice
lawmakers could genuinely demonstrate concern about maternal and child
health by promoting legislation that improves access to prenatal care,
fosters research that reduces premature birth rates, and broadens the
availability and affordability of health insurance.
Instead, we have a bill on the floor, Mr. Speaker which has had one
subcommittee hearing and a quick markup.
I think Dr. Sessions Cole and others have raised important concerns
about changing the definition of ``life'' or ``alive'' or ``person.''
In the end, it is families and newborns that will suffer.
Because I strongly believe that we should not be playing politics
with appropriate and compassionate care for all newborns, I will oppose
the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me adamantly
disagree with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the previous
speaker. Everyone does not agree on protecting newborns. We all know of
cases where newborns have been killed or left to die.
There was a piece done by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pulitzer
Prize winning newspaper, called ``The Dreaded Complication.'' It talked
about live births that resulted from failed or botched abortion
attempts. Dr. Willard Cates is quoted extensively in that report. He
was at the time the Chief of Abortion Surveillance for the CDC. He made
the point that reporting that failed abortions resulted in live births
is like turning yourself into the IRS for an audit. What is there to
gain?
The article talks about repeatedly, case after case, where
abortionists tried to kill an unborn child, failed to do so, only to
have someone else step into the gap, scoop up that child, and bring
that child to some kind of life saving situation. The report notes that
the common thread in all of the incidents, and they go through one
instance after another, is that it was not the doctor but someone else
who intervened to administer care to the child.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding three decades of distraction,
distortion, and deceit by the abortion lobby, I am happy to say a
majority of Americans believe, and according to a recent nationwide
L.A. Times poll, 61 percent of all American women regard abortion as
murder. The violence of abortion should be self-evident: Chemical
poisoning, dismemberment, brain sucking procedures.
But the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) seeks to
protect newborns, kids that are already born. They, too, are now at
risk under this slippery slope.
If one looks and reads the Supreme Court decision on partial birth
abortion, it should be a wake-up call. Partially born kids are not
protected. Kids who survive late-term abortions are not protected. This
legislation is absolutely vital to protect kids who survive and are
born after a failed abortion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, during the meeting of the committee which
approved the bill 22 to 1, when I asked minority members in the
committee, pro-choice members of the committee, to support the bill, I
did so partially in reliance on the words of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Canady).
I read from the transcript of the committee meeting, ``And let me say
that I think that the gentleman from New York and I have substantial
common ground on issues related to this bill. And the gentleman has
properly stated the purpose of this bill as being to reaffirm existing
legal principle.''
This bill, as I read it, as I read it now does not change the law in
any way. It is unnecessary. So why support it? Why vote for it? Because
of its dishonest sponsorship, because of the dishonest purpose behind
it. The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to
vote against it so that they can then slander us and say that we are in
favor of infanticide. If I had any doubts about that, the manager's
amendment and the Dear Colleague letter with it --
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I will not yield at this point.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. You are imputing the dignity of the chairman
by suggesting his motive is dishonest. We have better comity in this
place than that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) controls the time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I believe the only real purpose of this bill
is to trap the pro-choice Members into voting against it so that they
can slander us and slander the pro-choice movement as being in favor of
infanticide.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. NADLER. That is why I voted for the bill in the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
controls the time, and he is not yielding for that purpose.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, that is why I voted in the committee in
favor of the bill. That is why I will vote again and urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of the bill so we do not step into this trap.
Now, the manager's amendment, which was withdrawn, but certainly the
rhetoric of the sponsors, which we heard again today, are full of
untruths. They say that newborns do not receive full legal protection.
But there exists a common law born-alive rule imposing liability to
anyone who harms a person who was born and was alive at the time of the
harmful act.
The Federal statute known as the Baby Doe law already requires that
appropriate care be administered to a newborn.
They say that the Carhart decision, they grossly distort the Carhart
decision, striking down Nebraska's ban on abortion procedures, Stenburg
v. Carhart. The Supreme Court found the Nebraska ban unconstitutional
because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose by
banning safe and common abortion procedures and it lacked an exception
to protect women's health.
[[Page H8158]]
To suggest that Carhart is about the legal rights of newborns is
deceptive and irresponsible; and it is untrue, outrageous, and
insulting to suggest that pro-choice Members of the Congress wish to
deprive newborns of legal rights.
{time} 1945
Carhart did not expand Roe, and recent court rulings have not put
newborns in jeopardy. They deal only with pregnancy. They do not have
any bearing on newborns.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary. I am not sure it
is harmful in any way; but the real harm it does, the real purpose of
it, is to get us to vote against it so they can go out and campaign and
produce newspaper articles, such as the column by Mr. Will and Mr. Leo
that say that pro-choice supporters are in favor of infanticide. We are
not in favor of infanticide. The right to life begins, if not earlier,
certainly at birth. No one disputes that. And we are, not many of us,
are not going to fall into the trap by voting against this dishonest
bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of
the statement dated July 20, 2000, from the National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League in opposition to the bill.
[NARAL Statement, July 20, 2000]
Roe v. Wade Faces Renewed Assault in House--Anti-Choice Lawmakers Hold
Hearing On So-Called ``Born-Alive Infants Protection Act''
Washington, DC--The basic of tenets of Roe v. Wade were the
subject of yet another anti-choice assault today, as the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on H.R. 4292, the so-called ``Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act.'' The Act would effectively grant legal
personhood to a pre-viable fetus--in direct conflict with
Roe--and would inappropriately inject prosecutors and
lawmakers into the medical decision-making process. The bill
was introduced by well-known abortion opponent Rep. Charles
Canady (R-FL) and has been endorsed by the National Right to
Life Committee.
Roe v. Wade clearly states that women have the right to
choose prior to fetal viability. After viability, Roe allows
states to prohibit or restrict abortion as long as exceptions
are made to protect the life and health of the woman. In
proposing this bill, anti-choice lawmakers are seeking to
ascribe rights to fetuses ``at any stage of development,''
thereby directly contradicting one of Roe's basic tenets.
This bill also attempts to inject Congress into what should
be personal and private decisions about medical treatment in
difficult and painful situations where a fetus has no chance
of survival. It could also interfere with the sound practice
of medicine by spurring physicians to take extraordinary
steps in situations where their efforts may be futile and
when their medical judgment may indicate otherwise.
This is not the first time we have seen Rep. Canady and his
anti-choice colleagues attempt to chip away at the foundation
of Roe v. Wade in just this manner. Last year, this same
subcommittee held a hearing on the so-called ``Unborn Victims
of Violence Act,'' which also sought to ascribe certain
rights to a fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Rep. Canady is
also one of the chief architects of the federal ban on safe
abortion procedures used prior to fetal viability, which
directly undermines the fundamental principles of Roe. With
all these bills, anti-choice lawmakers purposefully set
America on a path they believe will ultimately lead to the
overturn of Roe v. Wade. In keeping with this goal, the
subcommittee has put the ``Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act'' on the fast track and has scheduled a markup for
Friday, July 21, 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a woman's right to privacy and parental
rights, which we will hear about, does not include the right to kill
one's live baby.
We heard some of the chilling words during the testimony of Jill
Staneck, who presented testimony before the subcommittee. We only heard
part of it, so let me read a little bit more. She said,
Other coworkers have told me many upsetting stories about
live aborted babies whom they had cared for. I was told about
an aborted baby who was supposed to have spina bifida but was
delivered with an intact spine.
A support associate told me about a live aborted baby who
was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room
wrapped in a disposable towel. The baby was accidentally
thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going
through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the
towel and onto the floor.
I was recently told about a situation by a nurse who said,
``I can't stop thinking about it.'' she had a patient who was
23-plus weeks pregnant, and it did not look as if her baby
would be able to continue to live inside of her. The baby was
healthy and had up to a 39 percent chance of survival,
according to national statistics. But the patient chose to
abort. The baby was born alive.
If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby,
there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident,
neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the
delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our neonatal
intensive care unit for specialized care. Instead, the only
personnel present for this delivery was an obstetrical
resident and my co-worker. After delivery, the baby, who
showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a
blanket and kept in the labor and delivery department until
she died 2\1/2\ hours later.
It is a sad day in America that we have to vote for a bill to protect
infants born alive, but this bill is necessary. We should vote to
support the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Michigan for yielding me this time.
I had really intended not to participate in this debate, but it
sounds like I got injected into it whether I was in it or not because I
am the one vote who voted against the bill coming out of committee 22
to one. My name is one, I guess.
This bill reminds me of a neighbor of mine who, when I was growing
up, had a dog who used to chase his tail. He would run around and
around in circles chasing his tail. It seems to me that that is what we
are doing with this bill. Because if, as my colleague from Florida has
indicated, the bill does nothing to change the law, then why are we
doing it? There is no compelling reason to pass a piece of legislation
that does not do anything, and the sponsors of this bill submit that
the bill does not do anything.
So at the end of the day, what we have done is add to the litany of
terms in our statute; that litany being person, human being, child,
individual, and another term which has no definition either, that term
being born alive.
The concern that I have about it is the concern that has been
expressed by the Congressional Research Service in its letter to the
House Committee on the Judiciary. In that letter it says, ``A computer
search indicates that there are 15,000 sections in the United States
Code and 57,000 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that make
reference to these various terms that are used; human being, child,
individual, and now, born alive I guess is the new term, and nobody has
made an assessment of what impact this bill has in those 15,000
sections of the United States Code or those 57,000 sections of the Code
of Federal Regulations because nobody cares.
All this is about is politics, and so we should be like my friend's
dog, chasing his tail around in a circle.
I am going to vote against this bill again, not because I am not
sympathetic to children who are ``born alive,'' but because I have no
idea what implications this bill has in the other 15,000 sections of
the United States Code and the 57,000 sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations. And if, as my friend submits, the bill does nothing
anyway, we will be no better or worse off as a result of my negative
vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this has been called many
things, but I call this a rollback of Roe v. Wade, since the real goal
here is to roll back a woman's constitutional right.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected an abortion law in
Nebraska. But I do not ask my colleagues to take my word for it. I will
place in the Record quotes from anti-choice organizations. One called
this ``A viable legislative option for pro-lifers that will not be
struck down by the Supreme Court.'' Another called it, ``A starting
point from which we can roll the point of legal protection back.''
[[Page H8159]]
But it is truly the statements of neonatologists and doctors, who
have submitted letters to my office and others, that I would like to
submit into the Record. One states, ``It would impose on doctors and
parents a universal definition of life or alive which is inconsistent
with the harsh reality presented by a number of circumstances.''
As my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) pointed
out, we do know that it changes the definition of a person in 72,000
places in the law; 15,000 in the U.S. Code and 57,000 places in the
Code of Federal Regulations. Quite frankly, I do not know what the
long-term impact of this bill will be, but I do know the intent,
because I have the internal documents from the pro-lifers, which I will
put in the Record, and I do know that doctors who deal with the painful
decisions of trying to help save the life of a child, many of them have
said that this does not help; it merely complicates and makes the hard
process of dying even harder on doctors and nurses and parents when
they have children who, for whatever reason, modern technology cannot
save that child's life.
I submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a number of letters from
doctors and other documents I referred to earlier.
Testimony of F. Sessions Cole, M.D. to Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, United States House of
Representatives, July 20, 2000
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Representatives, Staff, and
spectators. My name is Francis Sessions Cole, and my family,
including our two daughters, ages 16 and 14, and my wife of
28 years resides in St. Louis, Missouri. I appear before you
to offer testimony concerning Representative Canady's Born
Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 4292) as a
physician whose specialty is care of newborn infants. My
testimony is not sponsored by any organization. I completed
my pediatric residency training at Boston Children's Hospital
and my specialty training in caring for newborn infants in
the Joint Program in Neonatology at Harvard Medical School.
Since my Board certification in Pediatrics in 1981, I have
cared for more than 10,000 new-born infants directly, and I
currently have administrative responsibility for
approximately one half of all the babies born in St. Louis
annually (approximately 13,000 babies). I also have an active
clinical practice that focuses on caring for babies whose
transition from womb to world is complicated by one or more
problems like prematurity, birth defects, infections, or
problems with the afterbirth or placenta. I routinely
encounter babies whose problems place them on the edge of
viability.
The language of H.R. 4292 would impose on doctors and
parents a universal definition of ``life'' or ``alive'' which
is, in my experience as a neonatologist, inconsistent with
the harsh reality presented by a number of circumstances. The
fact is that the indicia identified in the bill--breathing,
or a beating heart, or pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles--are not themselves
necessarily indicative of life or continued viability.
Frequently, the heartbeats of infants will be maintained by
medicines, not nature; their breathing may be present but
ineffective as they die; they may move voluntary muscles
during the dying process.
As a physician who cares for ill newborn infants, I feel
that I have the greatest practice in medicine, because my
practice permits me to participate in miracles everyday.
Thanks to significant advances in technology over the last 20
years, babies whose parents could have been offered no hope
can now see their babies survive and, for the most part,
exceed both their parents' and their doctors' expectations as
they develop. Unfortunately, even today's most advanced
medical science is still a long way from being able to offer
every sick infant a reasonable chance for survival. In fact,
in our neonatal intensive care unit, approximately 10% of the
infants do not respond to advanced technology and pass away.
These deaths result from accidents of nature that are no
one's fault, and they are excruciatingly difficult for
parents, doctors, and nurses. Frequently, the emotional pain
of the decision to terminate treatment in such cases is
compounded by the fact that the technology that we provide
babies requires painful, invasive procedures. When parents
and physicians together decide that life support technology
is futile for an infant and is only prolonging the pain of
the dying process, parents have a moral and legal obligation
to minimize the suffering of their baby, regardless of the
pain such a turn of events brings to them in their loss.
The language of H.R. 4292 will, in my view, significantly
interfere with the agonizing, painful and personal decisions
that must be left to parents in consultation with their
physicians. Imposing the proposed definition of ``alive'' or
``life'' for statutory purpose may cause parents to prolong
the medically inevitable dying process of their infants out
of fear that terminating that process might be deemed to be,
for legal purposes, the termination of a life, when in fact
all that would be terminated would be the painful process of
death. Prolonging treatment in such cases would be not the
saving of a ``life'', but the prolonging of the pain and
suffering of inevitable death. As a physician whose career
has been dedicated to the welfare of newborns, and especially
critically-ill newborns, I urge the Subcommittee not to
inject an unnecessary and unrealistic definition of ``life'',
with all its legal implications, into the already agonizing
and heart-breaking situation faced by parents of infants in
the dying process.
____
July 19, 2000.
Ranking Democrat, Judiciary Committee
The House of Representatives.
As a physician and neonatologist with 40 years of practice
experience, I write to express my concern with HR 4292 IH,
the ``Born-Alive Infants Act of 2000.'' My credentials
include authorship of a major textbook, Neonatology:
Pathophysiology and Management of the Newborn, the fifth
edition of which was published in 1999 by J B Lippincott, Co.
I have also been Professor of Pediatrics for 30 years at the
George Washington University School of Medicine and Health
Sciences.
The powerful tools of neonatology (respirators, total
intravenous feedings, life support systems, etc) have reduced
neonatal mortality and saved countless infants. But they are
also subject to overuse in futile situations which inflict
pain and suffering on the infant, agony on the families,
prolongation of dying, extreme cost and resource utilization,
all without changing the fatal outcome. The humane and
successful management of these situations requires a delicate
balance in decision making, which has been recognized by the
Congress in the amendments to the Child Abuse Act, the
judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and various
Administrations. I enclose an article I recently published,
entitled Futility Considerations in the Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit, to illustrate some of these issues.
The current proposed legislation defines as ``born alive''
any product of conception with a single muscle twitch or any
indication of heart beat, regardless of stage of development.
The term ``born alive'' is then declared equivalent to
``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child,'' and ``individual.''
Presumably every miscarriage, even in the first trimester,
would be considered a child and would require a birth and
death certificate. The definitions make no distinction as to
whether there is any possibility of survival or not. Needless
to say, rather than clarifying things, this set of
definitions will immensely cloud the work of medical
personnel and families in determining what measures are
indicated and what would be futile and actually dehumanizing.
For centuries, different terms have been used to denote an
embryo, a fetus, a neonate, an infant and a child. An embryo
is pre-viable outside the uterus, and is in such a
rudimentary stage of development that a human embryo more
closely resembles the embryo of a pig than it does a term
newborn of either species. Yet embryos have beating hearts
and muscles which can twitch.
A fetus has reached third trimester and still has much
growth and development to achieve before normal birth.
However, many such fetuses can be stabilized and supported
after premature birth and even discharged home as infants who
can take their place in families. To blur these distinctions
seems to work against tradition, sound medical practice, and
the struggle of parents to understand what is facing them and
what the practical alternatives are.
I strongly urge you to oppose this measure, which I
consider regressive and ill considered.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gordon B. Avery, M.D., Ph.D.,
Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics.
____
August 9, 2000.
Representative Jerrold Nadler,
2334 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Nadler: As a neonatologist and author of
the textbook, Neonatology, I am very concerned that the bill
under consideration, referred to as the ``born alive'' bill,
will significantly interfere with clinical practice. In
setting definitions for being born alive, the issue of
viability is completely bypassed. For the clinician,
viability is crucial as it determines whether or not drastic,
invasive and burdensome care is indicated. Neither grieving
parents nor dying immature fetuses are served by futile chest
pounding and attempts at ventilation. Thus ``alive'' is not
relevant if it is not accompanied by plausible ability to
survive outside the mother. Up to the moment of birth, even
very immature birth, the baby's vital systems are supported
by the mother. Thus one might better seek to define
``independently alive.''
The definitions in the bill--a single gasp, a muscle
twitch, any pulsation of the umbilical cord--may identify
living tissue, but not independent life, even with strong
medical assistance. Any farmer will testify that you can cut
the head off a chicken and the heart will still beat, for a
time, the muscles twitch, and gasps may go on for several
minutes. Yet there is no sustained viability.
One might better use terms like ``sustained heartbeat and
respirations'' and ``maturity within the gestational ages
regarded as viable.'' Parents, health care givers, and the
general public will much better understand the meaningfulness
of such definitions.
[[Page H8160]]
I hope that these thoughts are helpful in your
deliberations, and would be glad to answer questions or make
further comments should they be needed.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon B. Avery, M.D., Ph.D.
____
[From the Associated Press, Cybercast News Service, July 14, 2000]
The question remains: Are their any viable legislative
options for pro-lifers that will not be struck down by a
Supreme Court that in a series of decisions--Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, Danforth v. Reproductive Health Services
and now Carhart--has shown no inclination to curtail abortion
on demand articulated in Roe v. Wade?
In terms of legislation, Senate pro-life leaders are
planning to introduce new legislation in place of the bill on
partial birth abortion, which had passed the Senate last year
but was vetoed by President Clinton, that would make it
illegal to kill a child that survives an abortion.
The virtue of the bill, said Hadley Arkes, a professor of
jurisprudence at Amherst University in Massachusetts and a
prominent pro-life writer, is that it stops what he sees as a
``terrible drift toward making the right to abortion the
right to a dead child.''
According to Arkes, by the logic of the decisions on
partial birth abortion, there is no way to distinguish
legally between partial-birth abortion and actual
infanticide, which he feels opens the way to allowing the
destruction of infants who survive abortions. ``This
establishes a bright line of legal protection,'' Arkes said.
The proposed law also would provide a starting point ``from
which we can roll the point of legal protection back,''
according to one Senate staffer for a pro-life floor leader
who may introduce the bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and a strong
supporter of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. There is a lot of
confusion about who qualifies as a person today, so this is an
important bill.
This bill says if a child, a little human being, is born and is
showing signs of life, this child is entitled to the full protection of
law. We are talking about babies who are breathing or have a beating
heart or whose muscles are moving.
Now, I must admit that I believe that life begins at conception, and
a child exhibiting these signs in the womb deserves the same protection
out of the womb, but that is not what this bill is about. This bill is
about a born, living, breathing little boy or girl being treated as a
precious human being and receiving the full protection of law, rather
than being thrown away to die in a linen closet, a plastic bag, or the
bottom of a trash can.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened in America when we even must have this
discussion on the floor? I believe this bill is something that we can
all agree on. Please support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition
to this bill. It is not innocuous, but it is unnecessary.
Protecting newborns is the law. Every single example the gentleman
has given should have been reported and prosecuted, because every
newborn in America is entitled under Federal law to all medically
indicated treatment, and the gentleman knows that.
This is not about protecting newborns. Listen to the words of a
neonatologist. ``When parents and physicians together decide that life
support technology is futile for an infant, and is only prolonging the
pain of the dying process, parents have a moral and legal obligation to
minimize the suffering of their baby, regardless of the pain such a
turn of events brings to them in their loss.''
What the gentleman is doing in this bill is to deny parents and deny
doctors the right to make decisions about premature infants. An infant
born at 3\1/2\, 4\1/2\, 5\1/2\ months is a tragedy, and parents in a
free society in America deserve the right to determine what medical
care they will have, recognizing that the law requires newborns receive
all medically indicated treatment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My colleagues, the one thing that I really want to make clear, and I
think there has been a little misstatement here, no one has found in
the committee during the hearings, or in the course of this discussion,
any example of where this measure would change existing law.
{time} 2000
This bill has nothing to do whatsoever with ``Roe v. Wade.'' ``Roe''
deals only with pregnancy. This bill deals with newborns.
And so, as we examine all of the Federal Code and the controlling
Supreme Court cases, there is nowhere that we have found any changes
that I could report to my colleagues. If there were, I would report
them. If there were, other Members in this body would bring that to our
attention.
And so, I urge, even though there may not be changes, that this
measure be supported.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time
to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, babies born alive, babies no longer in the
mother's womb, babies that show obvious signs of life should be
recognized as living babies.
The testimony from Allison Baker, a registered nurse who worked in a
high-risk labor and delivery unit, tells the fate of a baby whose
parents requested an abortion at 20 weeks because the baby had spina
bifida.
``My shift started at 11 o'clock,'' she said, ``and the patient
delivered her fetus about 10 minutes before I took her as a patient.
During the time the fetus was alive, the patient kept asking me when
the fetus would die. For an hour and 45 minutes, the fetus maintained a
heartbeat. The parents were frustrated and obviously not prepared for
this long period of time. Since I was the nurse of both the mother and
fetus, I held the fetus in my arms until it finally expired.''
Can my colleagues imagine being that nurse or those parents and the
pain they felt just waiting for that baby to die?
How often does an abortion fail and a living baby struggle to stay
alive? No one knows. No one has that information.
Mr. Speaker, it does seem that abortions fail much more frequently
than anyone cares to know.
If an abortion is successful, a dead baby is delivered. But when an
abortion fails, that means that there is a live baby, a baby is
delivered alive.
Mr. Speaker, does a woman still have a right to a dead baby even if
the abortion fails? These innocent babies have the same God-given
rights as my colleagues and I do.
I urge my colleagues to please vote yes in support of this important
bill.
General Leave
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4292.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the
merits of H.R. 4292, which is erroneously titled ``To Protect Infants
Who are Born Alive.'' I would challenge my colleagues for what they
suggest in the title of this legislation, because our country and its
people are not corrupt and morally bankrupted. Our commitment as
leaders, parents, grandparents, humanitarians and public servants is
the support of human life. However there are considerable concerns with
this bill; I hope it is not done for political purposes.
What this legislation does is not protect any child that is born
alive, because there is no law in this nation that would do otherwise.
What this bill would do if it becomes law is open states and local
municipalities to the burden of documenting all births of infants
regardless of their stage of development or opportunity for survival.
The ultimate result would be a ballooning of the mortality rates of
infants born in the United States.
The most important predictor for infant survival is birthweight;
survival increases exponentially as birthweight increases to its
optimal level. The nearly twofold higher risk of infant mortality among
blacks than among whites was related to a higher prevalence of low
birthweights, to higher mortality risks in the neonatal period for
infants with birthweights of greater than or equal to 3,000 g, and to
higher mortality during the postneonatal period for all infants,
regardless of birthweight. Moreover, the black-white gap persisted for
infants with birthweight of greater than or equal to 2,500 g,
regardless of other infant or maternal risk factors.
[[Page H8161]]
Each year, approximately 40,000 U.S. infants die before reaching
their first birthday. The 1990 Objectives for the Nation call for an
infant mortality rate of no more than 12 deaths/1,000 live-born infants
of any racial group for an overall national infant mortality rate of no
more than 9 deaths/1,000 live-born infants. In 1986, the infant
mortality rate was 18.0/1,000 live-born black infants and 8.9/1,000
live-born white infants. It is thus unlikely that the United States
will achieve the 1990 objective for black infants, especially since
black infant mortality rates decreased only 15.9 percent from 1980 to
1986; to meet the 1990 objective, the rate for these infants would have
to be reduced by 33.3 percent within the 4 years that remain in the
period.
These numbers are already poor when considering the material death
rate of African-American and Hispanic women and the mortality rate of
their children when compared to the majority populations. A slowdown in
the decline of infant mortality in the United States and a continuing
high risk of death among black infants, twice that of white infants,
prompted a consortium of Public Health Service agencies, in
collaboration with all states, to develop a national data base of
linked birth and infant death certificates for the 1980 birth cohort.
This project, referred to as National Infant Mortality Surveillance
[NIMS], provides neonatal, postneonatal, and infant mortality risks for
blacks, whites, and all races in 12 categories of birthweights.
Neonatal mortality risk = number of deaths of infants less than 28 days
of age/1,000 live births; postneonatal mortality risk = number of
deaths of infants ages 28 days up to 1 year/1,000 neonatal survivors;
and infant mortality risk--number of deaths of infants less than 1 year
of age/1,000 live births.
The language in this legislation is very similar to the 1974
regulations which was promulgated by the Department of Health and Human
Services, which outlined the viability of a newborn. It was outlined in
the regulations that two conditions have to exist are 20 weeks of
gestation and 500 grams of birth weight to survive. There has not been
any child born in recorded history that did not have at least these two
minimums to support the life of a child. One or both can be greater,
such as a child older than 20 weeks or over 500 grams of birthweight,
but no child is known to have survived with either of these being lest
than stated.
I commend the members of the House Judiciary Committee who have spent
many hours in debate and discussion on this issue. For this reason, I
invite them to join me in support of continued increases in funding to
the National Institute of Health's Child Health and Human Development
division, which is charged with federal research in the area of infant
viability. My greatest concern with this legislation is not that it
will not save the life of a child, but that it would have serious
implications for the mortality statistics of infants born in our
Nation. Should this bill become law it may require that states based on
the language of their own statutes regarding births and deaths may be
required to collect information on the birth and death of nonviable
infants born in the conditions that would be defined as ``born alive''
under the language of this bill. Finally, I believe that physicians
will do the appropriate thing for a new born infant with or without
this law.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Born-Alive Infant's Protection Act of 2000. H.R. 4292 is a critical
step in protecting human life. In the past, I have spoken of the
criticality of reversing Roe v. Wade. That horrendous decision has
given us early abortion of demand, late abortion on demand, partial-
birth abortion, and now its precedent has given us outright
infanticide.
Why do we need this legislation? It is needed for the simple reasons
that live birth abortions are already occurring. It has now become the
practice in some cases to induce labor, fully deliver a child, and then
provide no medical treatment, thus resulting in its death. This is live
birth abortion. This is infanticide. This is sick.
For our nation to heal, we need to recognize that life is a
continuum. We won't be able to do this until Roe v. Wade is overturned.
However, until then, we should at least make absolutely clear that
children are protected by the law once they are born. This now seems to
be an unfortunate necessity.
Mr. Speaker, our forefathers saw fit to found our government in the
form of a constitutional republic. In doing so, our Founders declared
in the Declaration of Independence that government existed to secure
``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Furthermore, our
Constitution enshrined the principle of equal protection of the laws.
If there is just simply one thing that this Congress should
recognize, it is our responsibility to protect the innocent. And, make
no mistake about it. These children are innocent. To allow for the
cruel execution, by non-treatment of those children who were delivered
early by induced labor is to be complicit in infanticide.
Mr. Speaker, when Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land eminent
theologians, philosophers, and public servants predicted this was the
first step on a slippery slope that would affect our concept of the
value of human life. We have come to see this prediction realized. Mr.
Speaker, we are no longer on a slippery slope. We have stepped off the
cliff. Reverse this sickening trend and vote yes on H.R. 4292.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4292,
the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This legislation codifies in
federal law that babies born alive are human beings who are legally
alive with constitutional protections.
It is important that babies are ensured of this common sense
protection. In two different instances in my district last year, two
babies were born after surviving preparatory procedures for a partial-
birth abortion. In one case, the baby received no medical care and
died. In the other case, the baby received medical care and lived.
In both cases, the women were planning on having a partial-birth
abortion at the Women's Med Center of Dayton. This medical clinic is
one of the few places in the country which preforms this procedure. In
order to have a partial-birth abortion, a woman must go to the clinic
about 2 days before the abortion is performed and have her cervix
dilated as an outpatient. Pregnant women react differently to these
drugs and in these two instances, the women went into labor and
delivered their babies prematurely at their local hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the article titled,
``Ohio Baby Survives Abortion Procedure'' which appeared in The
Washington Times on August 21, 1999, be printed in the Congressional
Record. This story highlights the details of these two cases in which
one baby survived and the other died.
Finally Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act to ensure that babies receive legal
protection and medical care once they are born.
Ohio Baby Survives Abortion Procedure
(By Joyce Howard Price)
A premature baby girl is listed in serious but stable
condition at an Ohio hospital after surviving preparatory
procedures her mother underwent for a late-term abortion--
reportedly a partial-birth abortion.
Maureen Britell, government relations director for the
National Abortion Federation, yesterday confirmed that a
woman gave birth at a Dayton hospital earlier this month
after ``experiencing premature labor at home following an
earlier cervical dilation'' she underwent at the Women's Med
Center, a Dayton abortion clinic.
The baby in question, born Aug. 4 at Good Samaritan
Hospital, was born 25 or 26 weeks into the 40 weeks of a
full-term pregnancy, said Mary K. McCelland, spokeswoman for
the Montgomery County [Ohio] Children Services Board. The
board has temporary custody of the infant.
``Her condition is still very tenuous because of her size.
She was born several months early . . . and this can lead to
a lot of complications,'' Miss McClelland said in a telephone
interview yesterday. She was unable to provide the baby's
weight but said the child is in an incubator and on a
respirator.
The county has filed for permanent custody of the baby and
will make her available for adoption if no one in the
mother's family wants her. Miss McClelland said.
``The recent birth of this very premature baby . . .
appears to be the result of a partial-birth abortion gone
awry,'' said Peggy Lehner, executive director of Dayton Right
to Life.
``The baby . . . escaped the final, fatal stage of the
three-day late-term procedure because the mother started into
labor before the third day.'' the pro-life leader added.
Mrs. Lehner said her organization received an anonymous
call about the baby's birth when the mother showed up at Good
Samaritan Hospital in labor. Mrs. Lehner said she
consequently talked with some hospital officials who
privately confirmed that the baby survived what was to have
been a partial-birth abortion.
In the two days before such a procedure, a pregnant woman
undergoes dilation of her cervix as an outpatient. ``The
abortionist inserts a drug into the woman's cervix, which
causes it to dilate [and expand]. The woman goes home, or in
many cases to a local hotel, during this phase of the
procedure. Some women apparently react to this drug much more
rapidly than others, and premature labor begins,'' said Mrs.
Lehner.
On the third day, a doctor, using forceps, delivers the
baby feet-first, except for the head. The physician then
punctures the baby in the back of the neck, suctions out the
brains and collapses the skull, killing it.
[[Page H8162]]
This is, at least, the second time in four months a woman
about to undergo a late-term abortion at the Women's Med
Center of Dayton has experienced premature labor and
delivered a live child. But, in the previous case, which
involved a 22-week-old female fetus known as ``Baby Hope,''
born in a Cincinnati hospital, the infant lived for only
three hours.
``Baby Hope's'' mother had been slated to have a partial-
birth abortion. And doctors at the hospital elected not to
provide her baby with medical care because of her
prematurity.
The Women's Med Center of Dayton is actually the home of
partial-birth abortion. Its owner, Dr. Martin Haskell,
developed the procedure, which he initially called ``dilation
and extraction.''
Dr. Haskell first described it at a National Abortion
Federation convention in 1992. The National Right to Life
Committee and other pro-life groups learned of his remarks
and quickly spread the word to the media.
Public outrage over this procedure--which pro-lifers dubbed
``partial-birth abortion'' since it involves killing an
already partially delivered child--led Congress and at least
28 states to pass legislation banning most such procedures.
But the laws have been blocked in 20 of those states as a
result of court challenges.
The ban enacted in Ohio in 1995 was the nation's first. But
it was later struck down by a federal judge as being too
vague. A rewritten version of the legislation is being
considered by the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee.
And while Congress has twice approved a national ban,
President Clinton has twice vetoed it. The federal ban
measure was reintroduced in Congress in late April and is
expected to be considered in the Senate in October.
Dr. Haskell testified as an expert witness in a trial
resulting from a legal challenge of a partial-birth abortion
ban passed in Wisconsin. He said he has performed
approximately 2,000 D&X procedures, which he now calls
``intact D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortions.''
Traditional D&E abortions, the most common type of
pregnancy termination during the second trimester, involve
dismembering the fetus. Dr. Haskell said he prefers doing the
``intact D&E'' or ``D&X'' procedure after 20 weeks gestation
because bones and ligaments become tougher and stronger at
that age and are more difficult to pull apart.
Ohio pro-lifers were shocked to learn that the mother of
the premature baby girl now recovering at Children's Medical
Center in Dayton was into her 25th or 26th week of pregnancy
when the child was born. Dr. Haskell has previously testified
he does not do abortions after 24 weeks. And he told the
court in the Wisconsin trial he does not perform abortions on
viable fetuses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4292.
The question was taken.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 380,
nays 15, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 495]
YEAS--380
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--15
Carson
Dingell
Fattah
Gilman
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Lee
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
McKinney
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Hinchey
Schakowsky
Slaughter
NOT VOTING--35
Bereuter
Boehner
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Clay
Ewing
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Hall (OH)
Houghton
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Klink
Lazio
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Packard
Paul
Pickett
Porter
Quinn
Rogan
Rush
Sandlin
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Stark
Vento
{time} 2024
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________