[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2000

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, under current law, infants who have been 
born, and are alive, are indeed persons. Therefore, these infants have 
the same rights as all humans, including receiving the best of care, 
comfort, food, and shelter. No one on either side of the aisle would 
dispute this fact. This is why I find it odd that Representatives Hyde 
and Canady feel it is necessary to introduce a bill which appears only 
to restate the current law.
  I question the motives behind the introduction of this bill. Of 
course I will vote for any legislation that I believe will help our 
children, but I am afraid that the motives for introducing this bill 
are based more on politics than on how to best serve our children. I 
think it is an underhanded attempt to trick pro-choice Members. This 
bill was brought before the Judiciary Committee as one that would serve 
to protect infants and ensure that they receive the best care possible. 
Based on this, all but one Member of the Committee voted in favor of 
the bill. The fact that pro-choice Members supported this bill, forced 
the bill sponsors to declare their intention to offer a Manager's 
Amendment. This amendment would have attacked the Supreme Court's 
rulings on abortion and mischaracterized the current state of abortion 
rights law. The inclusion of this amendment would have forced pro-
choice Members to vote against the bill. In turn, this would have given 
our colleagues on the other side of this issue the opportunity to say 
that the pro-choice Members did not support a bill that protects 
infants, when in reality we would have been forced to vote against such 
a bill due to its attack on the reproductive rights of women.
  I must give credit to my colleague from North Carolina, 
Representative Watt, for raising the issue of how fast this bill was 
rushed through the Judiciary Committee. This bill will amend the U.S. 
Code by defining the terms ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child,'' and 
``individual'' to include ``every infant member of the species homo 
sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.'' According to 
the Congressional Research Service, these terms appear in more than 
72,000 sections of the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations 
alone. While I would hope that the sponsors of this bill would not have 
included this change in the language if it would cause a change in the 
law or in the way the law would be interpreted by the Supreme Court, 
since the bill was presented as one that did not change current law, I 
am not totally convinced. As Representative Watt said in the Committee 
Report on H.R. 4292, this change in language opens the door for many 
unintended interpretations of the law.
  I know that there are many neonatologists who fear that this bill 
would affect the decisions made by doctors and parents when treating 
newborns. They are confused, as am I, as to whether this bill would 
mandate that doctors provide care beyond what they would normally deem 
to be appropriate for newborns who have no possibility of survival. 
Doctors are currently obligated to perform procedures that will help a 
baby to live if there is any chance for survival. Sadly, there are 
babies who are born with no hope of surviving past the first few 
moments of live. Doctors should not be forced to perform procedures 
that will only prove to be futile in prolonging the life of a child. 
Rather, the rights of the infant should be protected by allowing the 
infant to spend his few precious moments of life in the arms of his 
parents.
  The Committee Report states that ``H.R. 4292 would not mandate 
medical treatment where none is currently indicated'' and ``would not 
affect the applicable standard of care.'' Once again, I am concerned 
that this bill will open up current law to be interpreted in an 
unintended manner. Therefore, I think we should spend more time 
addressing how this bill will affect the current law with respect to 
doctors, women, and children.
  There is already a common law ``born alive'' rule that mandates the 
prosecution of anyone who harms a person who has been ``born'' and was 
``alive'' at the time of the harmful act. In addition, thirty-seven 
states have already passed explicit statutory laws relating to the 
treatment of infants who are ``born alive,'' and perhaps most relevant, 
there is a federal statue known as the ``Baby Doe Law'' that requires 
appropriate care be provided to a newborn. Therefore, why is this bill 
necessary? What is the true intent of this proposed legislation? If in 
fact the true intent is to restate the law which protects our infants, 
then I will support it. However, if it is being used as a vehicle to 
attack the Supreme Court's rulings on the reproductive rights of women, 
I will have to oppose it.

                          ____________________