[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 54 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1612-H1650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 119, the rule
just passed, I call up the bill (H.R. 503) to amend title 18, United
States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn
children from assault and murder, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 503 is as follows:
H.R. 503
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 ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
``Sec.
``1841. Protection of unborn children.
``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
``(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of
the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section
1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct
takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this
section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge
[[Page H1613]]
that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections
1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing
or attempting to kill a human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120,
1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505,
1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child'
means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or
`child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.''.
(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 90 the following new item:
``90A. Protection of unborn children........................1841''.....
SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) Protection of Unborn Children.--Subchapter X of chapter
47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919
(article 119) the following new section:
``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Protection of unborn children
``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under this chapter for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall, instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 880,
918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a))
for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human
being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a),
122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:
``919a. 119a. Protection of unborn children.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the
amendment printed in House Report 107-50 is considered adopted.
The text of H.R. 503, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 119, is
as follows:
H.R. 503
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 ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
``Sec.
``1841. Protection of unborn children.
``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
``(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of
the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section
1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct
takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this
section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections
1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing
or attempting to kill a human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120,
1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505,
1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child'
means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or
`child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.''.
(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 90 the following new item:
``90A. Protection of unborn children........................1841''.....
SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) Protection of Unborn Children.--Subchapter X of chapter
47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919
(article 119) the following new section:
``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to
unborn children
``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under this chapter for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall, instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections
[[Page H1614]]
880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and
119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a
human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a),
122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:
``919a. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn
children.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, if
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) or her
designee, which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 60
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 60 minutes of debate on
the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act of 2001. Under current Federal law, an individual who
commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives
an additional punishment for killing or injuring that woman's unborn
child during the commission of the crime. As a result, except in those
States that recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes,
injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent
crime has no legal consequence whatsoever.
This deficiency in the law is especially troubling, considering the
findings of a recent study of women in Maryland published in the March
21, 2001, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The
authors of this study found that homicide is likely the leading cause
of death among women who are pregnant or were recently pregnant.
Another recent study of autopsies performed on women here in the
District of Columbia revealed that an inordinate number of women who
died of violence were also pregnant. This study prompted a call for an
investigation by the General Accounting Office and the FBI.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,
was designed to correct this deficiency in Federal law by providing
that an individual who injuries or kills an unborn child during the
commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may be punished
for a separate offense. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on virtually identical legislation during the 106th Congress,
and the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support on
September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254 to 172.
During the current Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
held a hearing on this legislation on March 15, 2001. The subcommittee
held a markup on the legislation on March 21, 2001, and reported the
bill without amendment by a voice vote. On March 28, 2001, the full
Committee on the Judiciary held a markup and favorably reported H.R.
503, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 15 to 9.
Under the act, the punishment for an offense against the unborn child
will be the same punishment that would have been imposed under Federal
law had that conduct resulted in the same injury to the mother. For
example, if an individual assaults a Federal official in violation of
18 United States Code Section 111, as a result of that assault kills
the official's unborn child, the perpetrator may be punished for either
second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary
manslaughter, for killing the unborn child, the same punishment the
individual would have received had the Federal official died as a
result of the assault. By its own terms, the act does not apply to
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant
woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in
a medical emergency.
{time} 1045
So this is not an abortion bill. The act does not permit prosecution
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her
unborn child or the mother for any conduct with respect to her unborn
child.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 will provide just
punishment for criminals like Glendale R. Black of Wisconsin, who on
February 8, 1992, brutally beat his wife, Terry Marciniak, who was 9
months pregnant with her unborn baby, Zachariah. Little Zachariah was
just 4 days from being delivered from his mother's womb. At the
hospital, Zachariah was delivered dead.
At that time, Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law like H.R.
503, so Black was convicted of only assault and is already eligible for
parole.
The bill would also provide punishment for criminals like Reginald
Anthony Falice, who on April 28, 1998, shot his 8-month-pregnant wife,
Ruth Croston, at least five times as she sat at a red light in
Charlotte, North Carolina. Falice was convicted by a Federal jury for
interstate domestic violence and using a firearm in the commission of a
violent crime, but because Federal law did not currently recognize the
unborn as victims, he received no additional punishment for killing the
near-term infant.
Ms. Croston's brother, William Croston, testified before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the tragic death of his
sister and the failure of Federal law to recognize the murder of his
unborn niece.
Or criminals who planted a bomb just outside of Tammy Lynn Baker's
apartment in Louisa, Virginia. Ms. Baker was near term with her unborn
child when the bomb exploded on December 3, 1997, killing her and the
child.
Nearly 3 years later, Coleman Johnson, the unborn child's father, was
arrested on a Federal explosives charge for the death of Ms. Baker and
is awaiting trial. His charges do not include the murder of his unborn
child.
A similar incident occurred in Connellsville, Pennsylvania on January
1, 1999, when Deanna Mitts, who was 8 months pregnant, returned home
from a New Year's Eve celebration with her 3-year-old daughter, Kayla.
A bomb exploded in her apartment, killing Ms. Mitts, Kayla, and the
unborn child.
Almost a year later, Joseph Minerd, the presumed father of the unborn
child, was arrested for Deanna and Kayla's murder, but is not being
held criminally liable for the harm caused to the unborn child.
This legislation would also ensure just punishment for criminals like
Gregory Robbins, an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio
who wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance he would inflict
visible bruises, and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and
abdomen, killing their unborn baby.
Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for death of the
unborn child by assimilating Ohio's fetal homicide law through the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Had Mr. Robbins beaten his wife just
across the river in Kentucky, a State which has no fetal homicide law,
he would have received no additional punishment for killing the unborn
child.
By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that criminals who commit
violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for killing
unborn children or injuring them. Without this bill, crimes against
these innocent victims will go unpunished.
I have given the Members of the House a list of several heinous
crimes. It shows the need for this legislation. It shows specifically
that killing an innocent unborn child should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law.
[[Page H1615]]
The only way to do this is to pass H.R. 503, and I urge my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Stump, I submit for the Record a letter he wrote to the
Speaker relating to the floor consideration of H.R. 503, the ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.''
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite
floor consideration of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act of 2001, the Committee on Armed Services agrees
to waive its right to consider this legislation. H.R. 503, as
introduced and ordered reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on April 20, 2001, contains subject matter that
falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered,
and that the Committee's right to the appointment of
conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in this discussion.
I have listened to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary begin
by describing, I lost count, about seven or eight horrible, offensive,
violent incidents in which a pregnant mother and her unborn child were
hurt or killed.
There is not anyone in the Congress that does not feel very strongly
about the violence against unborn victims. But if that is going to be
the way we get to undermining Roe v. Wade, I do not think it is going
to happen here today, because I think our job is to make it clear what
is really going on.
Just for the record, I would like everybody to know that there is
punishment for the killing of a fetus. It was stated that there is no
punishment that exists today. It is in the Federal law. It is in the
current Federal sentencing guidelines that permit the enhancement of a
sentence under the vulnerable victims guideline. So that is number one.
Number two, there is a substitute. There is a remedy to the flawed
bill that has been brought on the floor. That is the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute, which does everything, and in some instances it has more
penalty for the person that attacks a pregnant mother and kills an
unborn victim than the current bill, but it gets us around the
subversion of Roe v. Wade, and it comports with Roe v. Wade.
I am amazed that we would begin this discussion trying to skip around
the whole heart of this debate. This is not a matter of how many
anecdotes you can dig up. I have 40. The gentleman has 10. I have twice
that amount.
The question is, how are we going to deal with the subject, Mr.
Speaker. The right way to do it is through the substitute, which is
going to be dealing with a way to punish the people that violate
mothers, and by the way, it is hard to deal with an unborn victim of
violence without hurting the mother as well. So this is what we are
here to discuss today.
Let us be friendly about this. This act was designed to erode the
foundation of a woman's right to choose under Roe v. Wade by simply
elevating the legal statuses of prenatal development under Federal law,
and creates a separate offense during the commission of a crime ``. . .
which causes death to a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage
of development.'' That is a quote from the bill.
Well, that sounds okay, but what does it mean? It means that if
enacted, this would be the first time in the Federal legal system that
we would begin to recognize a fertilized egg, a zygote, a
preimplantation embryo, a blastocyst and an embryo through 8 weeks of
pregnancy or a fetus after 8 weeks which can be a person, which can be
an independent violent crime. That is what the bill is trying to do.
I did not know I would have to be the first to bring it to
discussion, since I am against it, but no sneaking around today, we are
going to have to put it all on the table, so we might as well start off
now defending the proposition that is embedded fatally in H.R. 503.
These acts against women are tragic and especially for pregnant
women. But the true aim of this legislation is not to stop violence
against women. In fact, the protections for women are notably absent
from this legislation.
So what we are here today to do is to determine whether or not we are
going to undermine a woman's right to choose by recognizing that all of
these things that have not had separate rights are now equal to and in
some cases superior to women who are worthy of the legal protection.
The Supreme Court has held, I remind all the lawyers on the Committee
on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has held that fetuses are not
persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment. I am not going to
repeat that. If enacted, the bill would improperly inject debates about
abortion into criminal prosecutions across the country. That is
unfortunate and tragic.
I think that may be one of the purposes of why the proponents have
written the bill up in this way. They have crafted a bill that is
certain to inflame the national debate about when life begins. We do
not want to do that. We just merely want to protect unborn victims of
violence. The way to do it is by simply moving away from the notion
that we have just created another category of persons that have not
ever been recognized in the Federal legal system before now. That is
why we are going to have a fair amount of opposition to this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, as we conduct this debate today, we going to hear from
opponents that, for various reasons, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
of 2001 is unconstitutional. We will also hear that the legislation in
some mysterious way applies to abortion.
I want to make very clear from the beginning that these assertions
are false. In fact, these arguments only serve as a smokescreen, a
distraction from the real issue at hand.
What are the real issues? Those of us supporting this legislation
believe that when a criminal commits an act of violence against a woman
and her unborn child, the criminal should face punishment for both the
harm caused to the mother and for injuring or killing the innocent
child that she is carrying.
Opponents of the legislation feel otherwise. They believe that the
criminal should not face separate sanctions for harm inflicted on the
unborn child, even if the unborn child, a child that the mother greatly
wanted to bring into this world, is killed.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to address the legal issues that have been raised regarding the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.
First, questions have been raised about Congress' constitutional
authority to enact this legislation. The challenge to the bill on this
ground is completely without merit. It is clear that Congress has such
constitutional authority because the bill will only affect conduct that
is already prohibited by Federal law.
H.R. 503 merely provides an additional offense and punishment for
those who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of one
of the existing predicate offenses set forth in the bill. If there is
any question regarding the constitutionality of the act's reach, that
question is addressed to the constitutionality of the predicate
offense, not H.R. 503.
Opponents of this legislation also argued that it somehow violates
the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. This argument is also
without merit. To begin with, H.R. 503 simply does not apply to
abortion. On page 4 of the bill, beginning on line 9, prosecution is
explicitly precluded ``for any conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which
such consent is implied by law.''
{time} 1100
So it does not apply to abortion. The act also does not permit
prosecution
[[Page H1616]]
``of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her
unborn child or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.'' So it
does not apply to abortion, period. The act could not be more clear in
exempting abortion.
Moreover, there is nothing in Roe v. Wade that prevents Congress from
giving legal recognition to the lives of unborn children outside the
parameters of the right of abortion marked off in that case. In
establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, the Roe court
explicitly stated that it was not resolving ``the difficult question of
when life begins,'' because ``the judiciary, at this point in the
development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to
the answer.'' That is what the Court said.
What the court held was that the government could not override the
rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy by
adopting one theory of when life begins. The Supreme Court explicitly
confirmed this understanding of Roe in Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services. That was a 1989 case.
Courts addressing the constitutionality of State laws that punish
killing or injuring unborn children have recognized the lack of merit
in the argument that such laws violate Roe and as a result have
consistently upheld those State laws. For example, in Smith v. Newsome,
which was decided in 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit held that Roe was immaterial to whether a State can
prohibit the destruction of a fetus by a third party.
The Minnesota Supreme Court echoed that sentiment in 1990 in the case
of State v. Merrill, holding that Roe v. Wade protects the woman's
right of choice. It does not protect, much less confer on an assailant,
a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.
In 1994, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Davis that
the Roe v. Wade principles are inapplicable to a statute that
criminalizes the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent. In
State v. Coleman, a 1997 case, the Ohio court, my State, the Court of
Appeals stated, ``Roe protects a woman's constitutional right. It does
not protect a third-party's unilateral destruction of a fetus.''
Opponents of this legislation have also argued that the use of the
term ``unborn child'' is ``designed to inflame.'' They contend that the
use of this term may, in the words of those dissenting from the
Committee on the Judiciary report, result in a major collision between
the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn.
This objection reflects nothing more than the semantical preferences
of the most radical abortion advocates. It is based upon an apparent
lack of knowledge of the widespread use of the term ``unborn child'' in
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States
Courts of Appeals, in State statutes and in State court decisions, and
even in the legal writings of abortion advocates themselves.
The use of the term ``unborn child'' by the Supreme Court can be
illustrated by reference to Roe v. Wade itself, in which Justice
Blackmon used the term ``unborn children'' as synonymous with
``fetuses.'' Justice Blackmon also used the term ``unborn child'' in
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, in which the court struck
down Georgia's abortion statute.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have also used the term ``unborn
child'' as synonymous with fetus. These cases include City of Akron v.
Akron Center for Reproductive Health, decided back in 1983; Webster v.
Reproductive Health services, decided in 1989; and International Union
v. Johnson Controls, decided in 1991.
There are so many decisions by the United States Courts of Appeal
using the term ``unborn child'' that it would be too time consuming to
go through them all.
There are also at least 19 State criminal statutes similar to H.R.
503 that currently use the term ``unborn child'' to refer to a fetus,
and these statutes have been consistently upheld by the courts.
Even abortion advocates such as Catharine MacKinnon have used the
term ``unborn child'' as synonymous with the term ``fetus.'' In an
article that was published in the Yale Law Journal entitled
``Reflections on Sex Equality Under the Law,'' Professor MacKinnon
conceded that a ``fetus is a human form of life'' that is ``alive.'' In
her defense of abortion, Professor MacKinnon expressed her view that
``many women have abortions as a desperate act of love for their unborn
children.''
Finally, opponents of H.R. 503 have argued that the bill lacks the
necessary means requirement for a valid criminal law and is therefore
unconstitutional. This argument reflects a lack of understanding of
H.R. 503 and the well-established doctrine of transferred intent in the
criminal law.
Under H.R. 503, an individual may be guilty of an offense against an
unborn child only if he has committed an act of violence with criminal
intent upon a pregnant woman, thereby injuring or killing her unborn
child. Relying upon the doctrine of transferred intent, H.R. 503
considers the criminal intent directed toward the pregnant woman to
have also been directed toward the unborn child.
The transferred intent doctrine was recognized in England as early as
1576 and was adopted by the American courts during the early days of
the Republic. A well-known criminal law commentator describes the
application of the doctrine to the crime of murder in language that is
remarkably similar to the language and operation of this legislation as
follows: ``Under the common-law doctrine of transferred intent, a
defendant who intends to kill one person but instead kills a bystander,
is deemed the author of whatever kind of homicide would have been
committed had he killed the intended victim,'' which is essentially
what we have under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the legal challenges to this bill
cannot withstand serious scrutiny. It is clear that this law does not
in any way impact abortion. It is especially clear that the opposition
of the bill, in fact, stems from an objection to the very concept of
unborn children. The opponents insist that a concept that is a well-
recognized one in the law is somehow dangerous and subversive. These
arguments should be soundly rejected. The only people who have anything
to fear from this bill are the criminals who engage in violent acts
against women and the unborn children that they are carrying.
So, again, let me remind my colleagues of what the true question is
before us. Do you believe that a violent criminal who kills or injures
an unborn child, a child who is loved and wanted by a mother and
usually the father, should face an additional offense and punishment
for their acts? I believe that the American people would answer that
question with a resounding yes, and I hope the House would do the same
today.
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his
leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for
his leadership.
I urge Members to vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), the subcommittee chairman. I would like him to know that all
of us on our side and those that support the substitute believe
strongly that victims of violence should be punished; the victims, both
the mother and the unborn infant, the unborn victim. Okay. We all
believe that. We do not have a different view on that. Okay.
The second thing that you need to know is that, if this bill does not
deal with abortion, which I will go into later, why is it coming out of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution instead of the Subcommittee on
Crime?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It
is because the Subcommittee on the Constitution has jurisdiction over
this particular issue, issues of privacy, issues of civil rights, a
whole range of issues.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a civil rights bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Ohio said this is a civil rights
bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that is one among many of the
[[Page H1617]]
other issues. I was going to say it also has jurisdiction over
constitutional amendments and all kinds of issues.
Mr. CONYERS. All right. Is it a crime bill?
Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is it a crime bill? Yes or no?
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that clearly is a crime
against unborn children and as well as the mothers.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is saying yes, I
take it. It is sort of a crime bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. It is a crime bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is a crime bill as well as a
constitutional issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. It took a
half a minute of my time to get to that. But it is a crime bill that
comes out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Now, you think we do not know why, do you not? You think we thought
that it was tossed there by accident. But it is tossed there because it
is changing the fundamental constitutional law in the most controlling
case on abortion in current Federal judicial practice, Roe v. Wade.
That is why it went there.
So I think that we ought to put all these cards on the table and not
try to demonize the other side because we have a bill that does the
same thing as the primary bill. But the only thing that we do not do is
that we do not redefine what an embryo is. We do not change the status
of a fetus or a fertilized egg. We do not make them all persons, and
you do. There it is, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
That is the difference. If my colleagues corrected that difference, we
would all be supporting their bill.
It turned out that the Lofgren substitute is even more harsh on those
who violate women who are pregnant. So I just wanted my colleagues to
take that under consideration as we continue to debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald) who is the chairperson of the Women's Caucus.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member
for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. As the cochair
of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am insulted by this
misleading piece of legislation. This legislation is deceptive,
destructive, and a poor attempt to mislead and strip away a woman's
reproductive rights. This bill is extremely volatile and has the
potentiality to eradicate a woman's right to choose as recognized by
the landmark case Roe v. Wade.
This bill, in fact, undermines a woman's right to choose as cited in
the New York Times editorial yesterday, ``The Reproductive Rights Under
Attack.'' In fact, it says, ``Packaged as a crime fighting measure,
H.R. 503 is actually aimed at fulfilling a long-term goal of the right
to life movement.''
I stand firmly in the belief that women's reproductive decisions are
private and their individual freedoms must be preserved. Those who
support this bill claim that it is necessary in order to vigorously
punish offenders who harm pregnant women. If the emphasis of the bill
is to protect women, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the bill.
Assault against pregnant women is serious. Legislation that has a
separate agenda such as this one cannot provide the adequate protection
to women.
I oppose H.R. 503 because its real purpose is to erode the
reproductive rights of women. It is not intended to recognize violence
against women. In fact, it does not even reference a woman. It could
make matters worse for women by encouraging antiabortion prosecutors to
pursue charges for harm to embryos or the fetus while ignoring the
woman who has also been harmed.
Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a smoke screen. It is an affront to
American women who wish to have their reproductive rights left to them.
I say, if you are going to protect the rights of all other folks, the
gun owners, the oil drillers, then protect the rights of women. I
oppose H.R. 503.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has questioned
the Subcommittee on the Constitution considering this bill and has said
that this is a wholesale assault on the constitutional rights granted
women by Roe v. Wade. He is wrong.
Twenty-four States have statutes similar to the one that is being
considered today. If those statutes which protect the rights of unborn
children were such an assault on the mother's constitutional right,
every one of them would have been struck down by a Federal court, from
the District Court to the Supreme Court level. They have not been,
because it is not an assault on the constitutional right of a woman to
choose.
Then we just heard from the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) that this strips away women's reproductive rights.
I would submit to the gentlewoman from California that, if the woman
wanted to have an abortion, she would have had an abortion before the
assault took place. In these cases that this bill will protect, the
woman wants to have her child born.
{time} 1115
So she has already made her choice, and that was for the child to be
born. If someone takes away that child's right to life through an
assault or through a murder, then that person, that criminal, ought to
be prosecuted twice. You do not want the criminal prosecuted twice when
the woman has chosen to bring that child to term and have that child
born alive.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and agree with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that this issue has nothing to do with abortion.
Unlike the substitute that will be offered later today, this bill
specifically exempts any activity involving a legal abortion. This bill
is directed only at protecting the unborn child. It is an extension. In
fact, this bill allows for an additional prosecution after a person has
committed a violent act against the woman herself. Therefore, it does
recognize the woman. In fact, it recognizes the woman first.
Mr. Speaker, this woman that we are talking about must be pregnant,
but she must first be a victim of a crime of one of over 60 Federal
statutes that are violent acts perpetrated against the woman. Only then
will this legislation kick in, basically, as a way to also prosecute
that perpetrator for the crime done against the unborn child.
I commend to my colleagues that this is a measure that respects the
decision of the woman to bear her child. This is a measure that is an
additional ability for the Federal Government to prosecute against an
extreme act of domestic violence that causes not only harm to a woman,
but also harm and often death to her unborn child.
Mr. Speaker, as a State Senator, I worked on issues of domestic
violence, and was proud, in 1998, to support Pennsylvania's version of
this bill. In fact, the vast majority of Senators and House members in
Pennsylvania, both pro-choice and pro-life, supported this measure
because we understand that domestic violence is a serious problem in
this country. Unfortunately, statistics show that many of the children,
the unborn children who are killed in these cases, their mothers are
victims of domestic violence, as are they. In fact, as published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 2001, a study
that was done in Maryland recognized the highest percentage of pregnant
women who die, die as a result of homicide.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is a serious issue
of violence, a serious issue of domestic violence, and it should not be
clouded by concern about future legislation or potential legislation
that some believe may try to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Our ultimate concern here should be the real victims of crime. The
real victims of crime continue to be women who are victims of domestic
violence due to an outraged partner. The real victims of crime are
their unborn children, who often are the cause of the violence directed
towards the mother.
[[Page H1618]]
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is commonsense
legislation. It is supported across the country, and it is
constitutional.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that this
Congress has apparently failed to take the opportunity to unite on
something that I think we could agree on, namely, that it is wrong to
assault women. It is wrong to assault pregnant women. It is a dreadful
crime to cause a miscarriage through an assault on a woman. Instead of
addressing these dreadful offenses we are back to that same old fight
that divides this country, abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there are Members of this House on both
sides of the aisle who disagree on the question of abortion. Oftentimes
those viewpoints are rooted in one's religious beliefs. I accept the
fact that this country has disagreements about abortion.
It is unacceptable that we would use the issue of violence against
women and causing miscarriages as the entryway to having still another
fight about choice.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act will be
found unconstitutional. The gentleman mentioned that there are State
statutes that define a person as a zygote or an embryo, but those State
statutes have not been tested in the Federal courts or in the Supreme
Court, and are clearly at odds with Roe v. Wade. Instead we can adopt a
substitute that will be offered later today that assures that any woman
who is assaulted and, as a consequence of that assault, miscarries and
loses her opportunity to have a much-wanted child, occasions a separate
prosecution. We should not tolerate behavior that causes miscarriage.
Any person who has lost a child, any person who has had a
miscarriage, understands that is a devastating event that one never
forgets and never gets over. I am hopeful that we can put the abortion
debate to one side and reserve the argument about abortion for another
day and come together with the Lofgren-Conyers substitute that will be
offered later today and not entangle this very serious issue, of
harming a pregnant woman, with that other fight, about abortion and
choice.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I agree we ought to talk about abortion when an abortion bill comes
up. You are not hearing about abortion from this side of the aisle. The
other side of the aisle is bringing up the issue of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This has become an abortion debate
because the other side of the aisle has made it such. They are so
extreme and so afraid that they would lose their right to have an
abortion, that they would even deny those unborn children that are
killed by crime the rights that are due every other citizen in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, Members should support this bill and oppose the Lofgren
amendment because it fails to acknowledge when unborn children are
killed, they have been murdered. Life and death should not be subsumed
beneath some semantic fog. It is time that our society begin
recognizing and defending both victims who are harmed when violent
criminals attack pregnant women. Those who would artificially
discriminate between lives lost to crime within and outside the womb
draw empty and callous distinctions. All life is precious. Society must
protect every victim of crime.
Mr. Speaker, current Federal law devalues and denies significance to
unborn children. This destructive precedence has two unfortunate
consequences. First, current law accrues to the benefit of the
murderous thugs who destroy the lives of unborn children. These
criminals are not forced to atone for the young life that they have
destroyed.
Second, by denying a legal identity to unborn victims, we create a
society that is coarser, less feeling and less than it would otherwise
be. The law must not look upon a violent criminal's unborn victim with
an indifferent eye. Every young life must be acknowledged. Every young
life must be protected from predatory criminals.
Of course society through manners and custom have always deferred to
the care and comfort of pregnant women, but we would be callously
deceived if we limited our heightened attention merely to the woman's
physical condition without acknowledging a vital predicate. It is
precisely because a woman carries the miracle of life within her that
she becomes the most precious and treasured member of society. It is
because two lives exist together that society seeks to protect the
woman. And the law must protect both lives. The law cannot remain blind
on this point.
Mr. Speaker, let us take the logic underlying the opposition to this
bill and apply it to the case of an elderly victim. It would be a truly
repugnant idea to suggest that criminals should serve diminished
sentences if they preyed on elderly victims with only a few years left
to live. Fortunately, society does not draw this ugly distinction. We
value and protect life until a person draws their final breath. It is
intrinsically flawed reasoning leading to an equally gross injustice to
deny explicit protection to an unborn person who is months, weeks, or
even days from breathing his or her first breath.
Society must extend the protection of a law to every vulnerable
victim. The mothers of these murdered children see these crimes with
the proper perceptive. In an all-too-common set of horrible
circumstances, the criminal's unborn victim is actually the primary
target when a murderer stalks a pregnant woman. Under current law, when
an unborn victim is murdered, in the eyes of society, no one has died.
That has to change in our society.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this awful and unconscionable
oversight. This bill extends protection to every vulnerable victim in
America. Support this bill so that society will acknowledge and defend
every vulnerable American.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), and ask him to yield to me.
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say to the gentleman from
Texas, the very distinguished majority whip, before he leaves the floor
that we do recognize and make prosecutable killers of women that are
pregnant.
Mr. Speaker, we create two separate crimes, so I do not want that
misstated again unless you read the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. Two
separate crimes, both prosecutable and will be prosecutable because
they are constitutional.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill before us today because
it is unnecessary, misguided and facially unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court in Roe v. Wade clearly said, ``The unborn have never been
recognized in the whole sense,'' and concluded that ``person,'' as used
in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn.
{time} 1130
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) just made clear in his speech
a moment ago, as everybody I have heard on the other side has made
clear in their speeches, the whole purpose of this bill is precisely to
label the unborn fetus or zygote or blastocyst as a person in the whole
sense of the word. That is their purpose. Therefore, it is an abortion
debate, because if it is murder to cause a miscarriage of a zygote or a
fetus, then logically it is murder to perform an abortion. That is why
we are debating abortion, and that is why they are debating abortion,
whether they admit it or not.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about violence to
fetuses, embryos, zygotes, blastocysts. We will hear a lot about
horrific acts of violence perpetrated against women at advanced stages
of pregnancy, causing injury to the fetus. The sponsors will claim,
even though this bill addresses only violence against fetuses, that
this bill is really being considered to protect the welfare of these
women.
We should have no illusions about the purposes of this bill, that it
is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in
which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to
portray fetuses from
[[Page H1619]]
the earliest moments of conception as children with the same rights as
the adult women who are carrying them. The implication is that anyone
who does not share the metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice
movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on exactly the same basis
and with the same rights as a child or adult must secretly favor
infanticide.
This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus or even a zygote, a
separate crime of murder without reference to the actual harm to the
pregnant woman speaks volumes about that view. If causing a miscarriage
is murder, then by implication so is abortion. Even if the sponsors
have papered over this premise with language to the contrary, no one
should be under any illusions that this is the real and only purpose of
this bill.
Let us take the sponsors at their word. In the last Congress, the
report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary made clear
that their concern was that ``except in those States that recognize
unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal
consequence whatsoever,'' and that the bill's purpose was ``to narrow
the gap in the law by providing that an individual who kills an unborn
child during the commission of certain Federal crimes of violence will
be guilty of a separate offense.'' Providing such a separate offense
clearly recognizes the fetus as the victim of the violence, a
proposition that is at odds with the holding of the Supreme Court in
reading the Constitution.
In fact, this legislation marks a major departure from Federal law by
elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of prenatal
development to the same as that of the pregnant woman or any other
person who is the victim of a crime. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is
against the whole scheme of Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a greater
ability of the States to regulate, a greater interest in regulation in
later stages of pregnancy, precisely because the Constitution
recognizes that a fetus is not a full-fledged person from the moment of
conception.
For anyone still in doubt about the real purpose of the bill, the
National Right to Life Committee, in a memo distributed to members of
the Committee on the Judiciary, laid it out:
They say that such a one-victim amendment, talking about the Lofgren
amendment, would codify the fiction that when a criminal assailant
injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a
compound injury to the mother but no loss of any human life. The one-
victim substitute would also enact the notion that when a criminal
assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should be punished once
for killing the mother and then again for depriving her of her
pregnancy, but if there is only one victim, it shows the difference
between us.
So the radical antichoice groups acknowledge that the only difference
of opinion here is not how much to punish these offenses, because both
this bill and the Lofgren substitute would give heavy punishment,
although under certain circumstances, the Lofgren substitute would give
much heavier punishment than would this bill; the real difference is
that this bill recognizes the crime of murder against a fetus or a
zygote.
The bill is also unclear, as one of the majority's witnesses
testified in the committee hearings. Does it cover only an embryo after
implantation or at conception? Put another way, is it only murder if
you cause the miscarriage of a viable fetus? Or is it also murder if
you cause the miscarriage of a not-yet-viable fetus or of a two-celled
zygote at the moment of conception?
I think the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should tell us what the bill means. It is a
simple question that should have a simple, straightforward answer. Yet
I used my entire 5 minutes at the Committee on the Judiciary trying to
get an answer from the gentleman from South Carolina. He would not give
me an answer.
So I will ask him now, yes or no, is it murder to murder a two-celled
zygote under this bill or is it not?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the Committee on the Judiciary,
the language that we adopted in the bill is exactly what exists----
Mr. NADLER. Yes or no. I do not have the time to have the whole
explanation that is taken from the language of State law. Is causing a
miscarriage murder of a two-celled zygote or not under this bill? Yes
or no.
Mr. GRAHAM. When the fetus attaches to the womb, that is what the
prosecutor has to prove.
And if I may answer your question, the definition used in this bill
is the exact same definition that the House endorsed and passed 417-0
that the gentleman from New York voted for. This is the same definition
that he voted for July 25, 2000.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, he will not give a yes or no answer
because he cannot.
One last sentence on this whole thing. This bill is not about
violence against women. That is why all the violence against women
groups are opposed to the bill. This bill is simply to undermine Roe v.
Wade, and it will not succeed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, look at this picture of Tracy Marciniak and
her dead son. This little boy is not a zygote, not a blastocyst, not an
embryo, not a fetus, not anything but a little baby, a little child who
was brutally killed. His name was Zachariah. He was killed by his
father, a man by the name of Glendale Black, 4 days before he was due
to be born. He was beaten in the womb where he bled to death. And his
father got away with it.
Yes, Glendale Black went to jail, but not because he killed
Zachariah. He went to jail for assaulting Zachariah's mother. At the
time, it was not a crime to kill a woman's baby in Wisconsin as long as
he did it before he was born. If he had done it 4 or 5 days later, he
might have gotten life imprisonment. Instead, he is now eligible for
parole.
Wisconsin has since changed its law. If Tracy's ex-husband committed
the same crime today, he would be charged with killing her child as
well as assaulting her. But the Federal Government has no such law. In
Federal jurisdictions, that man could get away with killing again.
Look again at this picture. How can anyone say that this child is not
a human being? How can anyone say that Zachariah should not have the
same right to live as you and I have? How can anyone say that the crime
Zachariah's father committed was not more than just assault, but also
taking of human life? Or as his mother Tracy herself says, ``If you
really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the one-victim
amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you
decide.''
Mr. Speaker, America's first war was fought to prove that each of us
has an inalienable right to life as well as liberty and pursuit of
happiness. We need to affirm that we still believe in these principles.
We need to show that we still believe in God-given rights, the right to
life. We need to pass this good legislation. We need to pass it
unanimously. And we should reject the so-called one-victim amendment.
Pretending that nobody died the night Glendale Black beat his wife and
killed his son is to deny reality. Even worse, it is to turn our backs
on everything America stands for.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I wanted to comment on the terrible crime that we just had a
discussion of from the prior speaker. Clearly that was a horrible
thing, and the monster who did that is now free. That is the wrong
thing. That should be changed.
Unfortunately, H.R. 503 would not change a darned thing about that
case. I understand from the mother that part of the problem with the
prosecution was that the prosecutors could not prove the intent to harm
the unborn child. Under H.R. 503, there is also an intent requirement.
Otherwise, absent intent, one is limited to the term of
[[Page H1620]]
years of the underlying offense. In order to have Federal jurisdiction,
the only assault that is cited in the bill is assault against a Federal
officer.
So passing this bill would not prevent that terrible, terrible
tragedy. I just thought it was important to note that.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
her statement, her leadership on this, and also the ranking member's.
I rise in strong opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and
urge its rejection. Some Members on the other side of the aisle today
have indicated that they do not believe that it is a direct attack on
Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record editorials from the New York
Times entitled ``Reproductive Rights Under Attack,'' and also
editorials from the 1999 debate from the Washington Post, the St.
Petersburg Times, and the Seattle Times, all in direct opposition to
this bill. And all point out that it is a direct assault on Roe v.
Wade.
The material referred to follows:
[From the New York Times]
Reproductive Rights Under Attack
Congressional opponents of abortion have no appetite for a
direct and politically unpopular assault on Roe v. Wade. So
they are pursuing other legislative strategies that would
undermine women's reproductive freedom. One of the most
deceptive of these schemes is the benign-sounding Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, which is expected to come up for a
vote in the House this week.
Packaged as a crime-fighting measure unrelated to abortion,
the bill is actually aimed at fulfilling a longtime goal of
the right-to-life movement. The goal is to enshrine in law
the concept of ``fetal rights,'' equal to but separate and
distinct from the rights of pregnant women. In essence, the
bill would elevate the status of a fetus, embryo or other so-
called ``unborn child'' to that of a ``person'' by amending
the Federal criminal code to add a separate offense for
causing death or bodily injury to a ``child'' who is ``in
utero.'' The penalty would be equal to that imposed for
injuring the woman herself and would apply from the earliest
stage of gestation, whether or not the perpetrator knew of
the pregnancy.
The vote this week represents a serious test. An identical
bill passed the House last year by a 254-to-172 vote, and its
present sponsors are plainly hoping the arrival of a new
anti-choice administration will help gain passage this time
around in the Senate.
Violence against women that results in compromising a
pregnancy is a terrible crime. It may well deserve stiffer
penalties, which some states have already imposed. But the
bill's sponsors are more interested in furthering a political
agenda than in preventing and punishing criminal conduct.
Lawmakers who care for Roe v. Wade have no business voting
for this disingenuous legislation.
____
Editorials Against ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act''
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1999]
``While the bill specifically exempts abortion; it is a
clever, if transparent effort to establish a foothold in the
law for the idea that killing a fetus can be murder. What
makes this bill a bad idea is the very aspect of it that
makes it attractive to its supporters: that it treats the
fetus as a person separate from the mother, though that same
mother has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
This is a useful rhetorical device for the pro-life world.
But it is analytically incoherent.''
____
[From the St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 2, 1999]
``The bill's sponsors . . . claim the measure is not an
attack on reproductive freedom, but a bill to fight crime.
They point to the bill's exceptions for legal abortion
providers, medical caregivers and the mother herself as proof
that it's not anti-abortion. They are being disingenuous. . .
. The public not be fooled. This bill is about abortion, not
crime.''
____
[From the Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 1999]
``It would make sense for Congress to enhance penalties for
crimes against pregnant women, especially since pregnancy
greatly increases a woman's risk of domestic assault. It does
not make sense for Congress to exploit one critical health
issue--violence against women--to erode women's reproductive
rights. Its ludicrous to separate the pregnancy from the
woman. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive
freedom is part of the constitutional right to privacy; the
state can claim compelling interest only after the fetus can
survive outside the womb. For a quarter century, the price of
such freedom has been constant vigilance against laws like
this.''
____
[From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 1999]
``Congressional opponents of abortion rights have come up
with yet another scheme to advance their agenda. . . . [T]he
measure aims to chip away at women's reproductive freedom by
granting new legal status to unborn children--under the
deceptively benign guise of fighting crime . . . . By
creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill's
supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a
fresh legal assault on the constitutional underprintings of
the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Sending the nation
down a legal path that could undermine the privacy rights of
women is not a reasonable way to protect women or deter
crime.''
We should call for ``truth in Advertising.'' The sponsors make it
sound like they want to protect the fetus. Yet the definition is so
broad that it would cover three cells. Make no mistake, this is an
attack on a woman's right to choose, and now we know clearly and
squarely where the Bush administration stands.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy on this bill.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.
Statement of Administration Policy
(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies)
h.r. 503--Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001
(Rep. Graham (R) SC and 95 cosponsors)
The Administration supports protection for unborn children
and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The
legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause
death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the
course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill
also would make substantially identical amendments to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would
strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the
bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.
I might add, why are we here today? The Bush administration has told
us that their top priority is education. Where is the education bill?
The Bush administration has told us that they care about the Patients'
Bill of Rights to protect our seniors. Where is the Patients' Bill of
Rights bill?
But what we get on the floor is an attack on a woman's right to
choose, attack on her health and on her privacy. That is what we get. I
ask my colleagues, is that compassionate?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that this is
not a pro-life statement, it is not an attack on choice, but the
Traditional Values Coalition, on their Web site, I pulled it off today;
they state and I quote, ``Enactment of the bill would be a landmark
pro-life victory by recognizing the rights of the unborn.''
I include for the Record the pro-life organization's statement.
Victory: Unborn Victims of Violence Act Passes in the House
Criminals who murder or assault a pregnant woman will now
be held accountable to the violence inflicted on both
victims, the mother and her unborn child. This week the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, sponsored by Representative
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), passed the House of Representatives by
a vote of 254-172. This bill recognizes that an unborn child
who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal
crime is a human victim, and the assailant could then be
punished for the harm caused to this most vulnerable victim.
This bill provides vital protection for expecting mothers and
their unborn children. We applaud the House for passing such
important legislation.
The House also rejected an attempt to water down the
original act by opposing a substitute amendment offered by
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) by a vote of 201-224. This
victory is one step further in bringing justice for ALL
humans, born and unborn.
Regrettably, the United States federal criminal law does
not give unborn children the rights of personhood. Currently,
a person can attack a pregnant woman, causing the death of
her child and only be prosecuted for the assault on the
mother! It is a federal crime to attack, injure, or kill a
woman, but it is not considered a federal crime to do the
same to the unborn child of the woman. However, legislation
introduced by Representative Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proposes
to recognize the humanity of unborn children by using the
same standard to punish violence enacted upon the unborn as
any other person. This major pro-life bill would protect
unborn children from acts of violence and enactment of the
bill would be a landmark pro-life victory by recognizing the
rights of the unborn.
This bill treats a fetus as separate from the mother, though that
mother has a constitutional right to abortion. This bill does not
protect women in any way. In fact, there is nothing in the bill about
punishing the perpetrator for the crime against the woman. That is why
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes this bill.
According to experts,
[[Page H1621]]
current Federal law already provides authority for the punishment of
criminals that harm fetuses.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement from Ronald
Weich, a former Special Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, that goes
into further detail.
Testimony of Ronald Weich, Zuckerman Spaeder, L.L.P., Former Special
Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, March 15, 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is
Ronald Weich and I am a partner in the law firm of Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP. I respectfully request that this written
statement appear in the record of the Subcommittee's hearing
on H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.\1\
In this statement I analyze the criminal law and sentencing
implications of the pending bill. I bring several
qualifications to this task. From 1983 to 1987 I worked as an
Assistant District Attorney in New York City, where I
prosecuted a wide array of criminal cases. Thereafter I
served as Special Counsel to the United States Sentencing
Commission and participated in drafting amendments to the
federal sentencing guidelines. I then served on the staff of
several Senate committees where I assisted in the development
of federal crime and sentencing policy. I am now in private
practice, but I continue to serve on the advisory board of
the Federal Sentencing Reporter, a scholarly journal in which
I have frequently published articles on sentencing law and
policy. I am also a member of the Criminal Justice Council of
the American Bar Association.\2\
After reviewing H.R. 503 in light of my experience in the
criminal justice system, my knowledge of the federal
sentencing guidelines and an examination of relevant case
law, I reach one basic conclusion: this bill is unnecessary.
Current federal law provides ample authority for the
punishment of criminals who hurt fetuses. H.R. 503 adds
nothing meaningful to the charging arsenal of federal
prosecutors or the sentencing options available to federal
judges.
Because the bill is unnecessary from a criminal law
perspective, I suspect that its purpose, instead, is to score
rhetorical points in the perennial struggle over abortion
rights. For reasons that I will explain, I object to the use
of the federal criminal code as a battlefield in the abortion
wars.
I will first describe why the bill is unnecessary in light
of current federal law and then explain why I believe it is
an unwise addition to federal law.
I. H.R. 503 is unnecessary
Current federal law already provides sufficient authority
to punish the conduct that H.R. 503 purports to punish.
At the outset it should be understood that very few violent
crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Most street
level violent crimes are prosecuted under state law by state
prosecutors in state courts. Under our constitutional system,
federal criminal jurisdiction only exists if the crime
implicates federal civil rights or interstate commerce--which
few violent crimes do--or if the crime occurs on a federal
enclave such as a federal office building, a military base or
an Indian reservation. Thus there are only a handful of
federal murder and assault prosecutions each year, and most
of those involve Native Americans.
H.R. 503 targets relatively rare conduct to begin with,
namely criminal assault on a fetus. And in the federal
context, that rare conduct is even more unusual. I researched
federal case law and found only one reported case in recent
years in which the victim of the offense of conviction was a
fetus. In that case, U.S. v. Spencer, 839 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.
1988), the Native American defendant assaulted a pregnant
woman on an Indian reservation, kicking and stabbing her in
the abdomen. The woman was successfully treated for life-
threatening injuries, but her fetus was born alive and then
died. The Ninth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction
under the federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111. Thus,
even without the help of H.R. 503, a federal defendant was
successfully prosecuted for murdering a fetus.
The Spencer decision is significant for several reasons.
First, it illustrates how rare such cases are in the federal
system--the court refers to the issue of federal criminal
liability for fetal death as one of ``first impression''
and in the 13 years since it was decided, the issue
decided in Spencer appears not to have arisen in another
reported federal case. There is no crime wave of federal
fetal assaults crying out for a legislative solution. But
should this rare scenario present itself in federal court
again, Spencer stands for the proposition that criminal
liability may be imposed under current federal law.
The Spencer court relies on the well established common law
doctrine, developed in state courts, that fetal death
subsequent to birth due to fetal injuries may be prosecuted
as homicide. See, Annotation, Homicide Based on Killing of
Unborn Child, 64 A.L.R. 5th 671 (1998). Among the many state
cases upholding homicide convictions for assaults that
resulted in the death of a fetus are William v. State, 561
A.2d 216 (Maryland 1989); State v. Cornelius, 448 N.W.2d 434
(Wisconsin 1989); People v. Hall, 158 A.D.2D 69 (New York
App. Div. 1st Dept. 1990); and State v. Cotton, 5 P.3d918
(Arizona 2000).
The broad support for this rule in the state courts does
not argue for its necessity in the federal code, since state
law of this nature is incorporated into federal law by the
Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13, when the crime
occurs in a federal enclave such as a military base. That was
the basis on which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
recently upheld the homicide conviction of Gregory Robbins
for beating his wife and thereby causing the termination of
her pregnancy. U.S. v. Robbins, 52 M.J. 159 (1999).
Proponents of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act had argued
in 1999 that the Robbins case, then pending, demonstrated the
need for a new federal law, but the successful outcome of the
prosecution shows precisely the opposite: current federal law
is sufficient.
Analytically separate from the question of criminal
liability is the question of punishment. Here again, current
federal law is sufficient. There is no dispute that causing
harm to a fetus during the commission of a federal felony
should generally result in enhanced punishment, and courts
have uniformly held that such enhancements are available
under the current sentencing guidelines. For example, in both
U.S. v. Peoples, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27067 (9th Cir. 1997)
and U.S. v. Winzer, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29640 (9th Cir.
1998), the court held that assaulting a pregnant woman during
a bank robbery could lead to a two level enhancement
(approximately a 25% increase) under Sec. 2B1.1(b)(3)(A) of
the Guidelines relating to physical injury. In U.S. v. James,
139 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 1998), the court held that a pregnant
woman may be treated as a ``vulnerable victim'' under
Sec. 3A1.1 of the Guidelines, again leading to a two level
sentencing enhancement for the defendant. And in United
States v. Manuel, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 14946 (9th Cir. 1993),
the court held that the defendant's prior conviction for
assaulting his pregnant wife warranted an upward departure
from the applicable guideline range for his subsequent
assault conviction.
While there have been no federal death penalty prosecutions
of civilians in recent years involving fetal assaults, the
military justice system treats the murder victim's pregnancy
as an aggravating factor to be considered during the capital
sentencing phase of a trial. United States v. Thomas, 43 M.J.
550 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Ct. of Crim. App. 1995). This
holding follows state law precedents in which the pregnancy
of the victim is a statutory aggravator in capital cases.
See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11, Sec. 4209(e)(1)(p) (Supp.
1986).
In sum, H.R. 503 is unnecessary because federal case law
and the federal sentencing guidelines, building on well-
established common law principles, already authorize serious
punishment for the harm that the bill seeks to address.
II. H.R. 503 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
To say that H.R. 503 is unnecessary does not end the
inquiry. As members of the Judiciary Committee are aware, the
federal criminal code is characterized by much redundancy,
and one more criminal law prohibiting what is elsewhere
prohibited would barely add to the thicket. But for three
reasons, H.R. 503 would not only constitute an unnecessary
addition to the Code, it would also be an undesirable
addition.
First, the bill has been drafted in a structurally unsound
manner and will lead to considerable confusion and
litigation. To be convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1841, the
new criminal offense created by H.R. 503, a defendant must
have ``engage[d] in conduct that violates'' one of the
existing federal crimes enumerated in Sec. 1841(b). But must
the defendant be convicted of one of those other offenses
before he may be convicted of the separate offense under
Sec. 1841? That is a fair reading of the text, but the answer
is not without doubt. There is already considerable
controversy and resource-draining litigation in the federal
courts over whether various title 18 provisions constitute
separate offenses requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt
or sentencing enhancements requiring only proof by a
preponderance of evidence, see, e.g. Appendix v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000); Jones v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1215
(1999). H.R. 503 would add to this confusion if there were
ever a prosecution under the new criminal provision it
establishes.
This problem could be addressed if, instead of creating a
new criminal offense, H.R. 503 merely directed the Sentencing
Commission to either establish a new sentencing enhancement
when the victim of the crime is a pregnant woman, or make
clear that a pregnant woman may be considered a ``vulnerable
victim'' under existing Sec. 3A1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines. As demonstrated above, the generic provisions of
the Guidelines already accomplish this result. But at least a
sentencing enhancement bill would not foster confusion and
litigation.
Second, H.R. 503 is overbroad. To begin with, it
incorporates by reference an unduly broad definition of
``bodily injury'' from 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365. Whereas the
common law rule applied to termination of the pregnancy, H.R.
503 would make it a violation of federal law to cause
``physical pain'' to the fetus or ``any other injury to the
[fetus], no matter how temporary.'' 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1365(g)(4). That definition may make sense in the
consumer safety context from which it derives, but it is
bizarre and extreme in the prenatal context of H.R. 503.
Further, H.R. 503 applies to all fetuses, not merely those
that are viable, and explicitly applies to unintentional as
well as intentional conduct. The common law rule, evolved
over centuries of Anglo-
[[Page H1622]]
American jurisprudence, is that an assault causing the death
of a viable (or, in the archaic phrase, ``quickened'') fetus
gives rise to criminal liability. The rule in H.R. 503 is
that an assault unintentionally causing ``pain'' to a weeks-
old fetus gives rise to criminal liability.\3\
Third, the bill is a transparent effort to undermine Roe v.
Wade. Since H.R. 503 adds nothing meaningful to substantive
federal criminal law, its purpose is purely symbolic: to
bestow statutory personhood on fetuses, even those that are
not viable.
It is no accident that the bill says nothing about injuries
to pregnant women; instead the newly created title is styled
``Protection of Unborn Children.'' An assault on a fetus
cannot occur without an assault on the pregnant women, but
the bill is deliberately framed in terms that ignore the
woman. To be sure, there is an explicit exception to the
criminal penalties in the bill for ``conduct relating to an
abortion'' but make no mistake--this bill is just one more
step in the anti-abortion movement's methodical strategy to
humanize fetuses, marginalize women, demonize abortion
providers, and make the image of abortion less palatable to
the American people. The extreme overbreadth of H.R. 503
flows directly from that strategy.
The validity of the constitutional protections established
in Roe v. Wade exceeds the scope of this testimony and is
beyond my field of expertise. But as someone who cares
about the integrity of the criminal law, I regret that
this skirmish in the abortion wars flares up unnecessarily
in the federal criminal code. The criminal justice system
is built on ancient principles such as proportionality of
punishment and the requirement that a wrongdoer have acted
with intent to cause harm (mens rea). In ignoring these
principles, H.R. 503 is an unsound piece of crime
legislation.
Because I believe H.R. 503 to be both unnecessary and
unwise, I urge the subcommittee to reject it.
Notes
\1\ On July 21, 1999, I testified before this Subcommittee
in person regarding H.R. 2436, the version of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act introduced in the 106th Congress.
Because H.R. 2436 and the pending H.R. 503 are substantially
the same, my testimony this year substantially duplicates the
testimony I previously provided. Nonetheless, I wish this
statement to appear in the record of the current hearing so
that it is available to members of Congress considering the
pending bill.
\2\ I wish to make clear that I am not testifying on behalf
of the American Bar Association or any other entity with
which I am affiliated. Nor am I testifying on behalf of any
of my law or lobbying clients. For example, it is a matter of
public record that I have represented Planned Parenthood
Federation of America (PPFA) with respect to pharmaceutical
pricing issues, but I do not represent PPFA at this hearing.
The views I express herein are strictly my own.
\3\ The bill's new Sec. 1841(a) defines the term ``unborn
child'' tautologically as ``a child in utero.'' Unless the
drafters of H.R. 2426 intend to word ``child'' to imply
viability, the bill would apply to conduct that impacted a
first trimester pregnancy. Whether an ``unborn child'' of
such gestational age constitutes a human being raises
constitutional issues beyond the scope of this testimony.
Mr. Speaker, this bill really has nothing to do with protecting a
fetus and it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to
choose. That is why all the women's organizations, that is why all the
domestic violence organizations oppose it, but the Bush administration
supports it. It is a sham, it is aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, it
is further aimed at marginalizing female victims, and it is plainly
unnecessary.
It is plainly wrong. I urge a no vote against this antiwoman bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2000, the House of Representatives, by a
vote of 417-0, passed the Innocent Child Protection Act. This bill
would prohibit either the Federal Government or any State from
executing a woman while she carries a child in utero. That bill defined
``child in utero'' in the same language as the legislation that is
before us.
{time} 1145
We heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others, talk
about two-cell zygotes and other terms that have been used during the
development of the Homo sapiens, but the protection that was given to
the child in utero by the bill that passed last year by a vote of 417-
0, I have the roll call here. I noticed the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) endorsed this definition when it came to the death
penalty, as did the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Why should we not use the
same definition that everybody endorsed last year when it came to
executing pregnant women at the State and Federal level in the
legislation that sets up this separate crime?
I intend to be consistent in my votes by voting for this definition
in this bill, as I did last year for the definition in the other bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a new Member of this body in strong
support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, offered by my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. Speaker, it amazes this new Member that there are those who
oppose this initiative before the House, which is simply an effort to
defend unborn children from violence. Do we not all have an interest in
protecting mothers and their children from violent attackers? Who in
this House has not read a story in the newspaper about an expectant
mother like that described by the Committee on the Judiciary chairman,
the story of Shawana Pace whose boyfriend paid to have her assaulted
and because of that abuse she lost her child? The outrage and the anger
of the public after these events demands that we take action.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their zeal to prevent this bill from
becoming law, would have us believe that punishing criminals for
existing Federal crimes would compromise the rights of mothers. This
premise is simply wrong. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act
specifically targets not women or women's rights, but criminals who
cause death or harm to an unborn child while committing one of 63
existing Federal crimes.
As the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) observed, the Journal
of the American Medical Association published a recent study that found
that homicide is the most common cause of death among pregnant women in
Maryland. A week later, JAMA published another study that found that 6
percent of all pregnant women in North Carolina are abused while they
are pregnant.
Despite these alarming facts, Federal law does not punish criminals
who prey on pregnant women simply because they are pregnant.
The alternative to this bill to be offered later today fails to
address a central cause of violence against pregnant women because it
fails to recognize that the child is often the primary target of the
assailant.
Mr. Speaker, by protecting the child we protect the mother. It is a
fundamental axiom of Western civilization, the belief in the sanctity
of human life. By failing to recognize crimes against the life of the
unborn child, we place not only one life at risk but two. We must
correct this oversight in Federal law and ensure that criminals who
prey on pregnant women and their unborn children pay the appropriate
penalty for their crimes.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. This Congress should seize this opportunity to extend the
protection of the law to the most defenseless in our society.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Solis) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham)
was the one that said that H.R. 503 is a two-victim bill. The bill on
the floor is not a two-victim bill. The bill only recognizes one
victim, the embryo or the fetus. Harm to the woman does not factor into
the bill at all. The bill does not require prosecution of the crime
against the woman, and so to call it a two-victim bill is a fallacy.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to join my Democratic
colleagues and rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the so-called
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While the bill supporters claim that
they want to protect pregnant women from crime, their bill does no such
thing. Instead, the bill recognizes for the first time a fetus as a
person, with rights separate and equal to that of a woman.
[[Page H1623]]
I am disappointed that the sponsors of H.R. 503 would play politics
with the issue of women's safety. Of course we can all agree that
pregnant women deserve protection against crime and violence, but we
all hold very different beliefs on a woman's right to choose. Therefore
it is simply irresponsible to confuse the two issues in H.R. 503, as
this does.
That is why I am not voting for H.R. 503 in favor of the substitute
amendment, which will be offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren). The Lofgren substitute, the Motherhood
Protection Act, increases the penalty for attacking a pregnant woman.
Let us work together to pass something we can all agree on, rather than
playing politics, and let us preserve women's safety.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and support the Lofgren
substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, back in September of 1999, when this bill
came before us, one of the opponents of the bill said this, because the
criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child and an abortion
are too easy to confuse, we need to vote against this bill.
Now we are again hearing today that it is hard to distinguish between
a criminal attack on a woman which kills her baby and an abortion. But
I say, I think the American people can distinguish between the two of
those, and I think Members of this body can. We also heard today, and
we heard in that earlier argument, that this bill would do a dangerous
thing. It would recognize the legal status of an unborn child.
Now that is pretty dangerous, is it not, recognizing the legal status
of an unborn child?
Is an unborn child illegal? Are they born into the world illegal?
When do they pass from illegal to legal? I think if a mother wants to
have a child, wants to have that child born, wants to raise that child,
that child is legal.
I want to talk about something else, something else that the
opponents I do not think would want to talk about, and I think this is
particularly telling, it is an article in the March 2001 Journal of
American Medicine, and it simply says one thing, the disturbing finding
that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a
victim of homicide than due to any other cause. In other words, a
pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than die of
any other cause.
It compared that to nonpregnant women in the same age group, and that
was the fifth leading cause of death.
As that article asks the question, we ought to ask the same question.
Only by having a clear understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-
associated mortality can there be comprehensive prevention.
In other words, pregnant women are victims of homicide in a far
greater percentage than nonpregnant women. We need to understand that
if we are to prevent it.
How do we prevent it? Why does one think pregnant women are five
times more likely to die of a homicide in this study and in an earlier
study in the Journal of Public Health and in two studies in obstetrics
and gynecology? I would submit that the fact they are pregnant is
making them a target. These studies certainly say that they are a
target. This bill, and I praise the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) for offering it, it is a needed step to help what has become an
attack on pregnant women.
Remarks Upon Passage of Bill in 106th Congress
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act and opposed to the amendment.
We have heard some very interesting statements out here on
the floor today. One of the opponents of this act said we
ought to vote against this act because, and let me quote,
``because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose
a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to confuse the
two.''
In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes
her to lose her unborn child, she said the only difference in
that and an abortion is, she says, the result is the same
except for the criminal intent, and we cannot always
determine the difference.
Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that
this Congress or the American people cannot distinguish
between a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose
her unborn child and an abortion? I do not think so. I think
that is ludicrous.
Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we
were told that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction
may have jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not
have jurisdiction over the unborn child.
In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try
someone for assaulting her or murdering her, but not her
unborn child, because that would not be a Federal act.
Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those?
Would we try them, as that person who opposes it said, we
ought to try that case in the State court? Of course not.
That is ludicrous.
The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this
statement, and I say this with respect to all Members: that
this is the first occasion that this Congress or this Supreme
Court has ever recognized the legal status of an unborn
child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing the legal
status of an unborn child.
Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn
children illegal?
How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision
to keep that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants
to have that child. She wants to raise that child. Is there
anything wrong with recognizing the legal status of that
child? Should that child have no status, no rights? Of course
not.
____
[From JAMA, March 21, 2001]
Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality--Maryland,
1993-1998
(By Isabelle L. Horon and Diana Cheng)
Complete and accurate identification of all deaths
associated with pregnancy is a critical first step in the
prevention of such deaths. Only by having a clear
understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-associated
mortality can comprehensive prevention strategies be
formulated to prevent these unanticipated deaths among
primarily young, healthy women.
Death statistics compiled through the National Vital
Statistics System by the National Center for Health
Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are a
major source of data on deaths occurring during pregnancy and
in the postpartum period. Original death certificates from
which state and national vital statistics are derived are
filed in and maintained by individual states. Causes of death
on death certificates are reported by attending physicians
or, under certain circumstances such as death from external
trauma or unexplained death, by medical examiners or
coroners.
The National Center for Health Statistics is required to
use the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a
maternal death for preparation of mortality data. According
to the WHO definition, a maternal death is ``the death of a
woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of
pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the
pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the
pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or
incidental causes.'' \1\ This definition includes deaths
assigned to the cause ``complication of pregnancy,
childbirth, and the puerperium'' (International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] codes 630-
676).
Death records are an important source of data on pregnancy
mortality because they are routinely collected by the states
and are comparable over time and across the nation. However,
there are several limitations to using these data to identify
all deaths associated with pregnancy. First, the cause-of-
death information provided on these records is sometimes not
accurate. Previous studies have shown that physicians
completing death records following a maternal death fail to
report that the woman was pregnant or had a recent pregnancy
in 50% or more of these cases,2-4 resulting in the
misclassification of the underlying cause of death. Since
these deaths cannot be identified as maternal deaths through
routine surveillance methods, they are not included in the
calculation of maternal mortality rates.
An additional limitation of using death records alone for
comprehensive identification of all deaths associated with
pregnancy is that the WHO definition of a maternal death
limits the temporal and causal scope of pregnancy mortality.
As defined by WHO, a maternal death does not include deaths
occurring more than 42 days following termination of
pregnancy or deaths resulting from causes other than direct
complications of pregnancy, labor, and the puerperium.
To address these issues, the term ``pregnancy-associated
death'' was introduced by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, in collaboration with the Maternal Mortality
Special Interest Group of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to define a death from any
cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery
or pregnancy termination, regardless of the duration or
anatomical site of the pregnancy.\5\ Pregnancy-associated
deaths include not only deaths commonly associated with
pregnancy such as hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension,
and embolism--which are captured in the WHO definition--but
also deaths not traditionally considered to be related to
pregnancy such as accidents, homicide, and suicide. The term
also includes deaths occurring 43 to 365 days following
termination of pregnancy. Since
[[Page H1624]]
cause-of-death information on death certificates cannot
identify deaths from nonmaternal causes or deaths occurring
43 or more days following termination of pregnancy as
associated with pregnancy, additional sources of data must be
used for complete ascertainment of all pregnancy-associated
deaths.
Previous studies on pregnancy-associated deaths have relied
largely on linkage or records 2.6-8 or the use of
a check box on the death certificate \9\ to identify
pregnancy-associated deaths. Only 1 study (Allen et al \10\)
in New York City used death certificates, linkage of records,
and review of autopsy reports to identify pregnancy-
associated deaths. However, this study did not include all
pregnancy-associated deaths since only records for deaths
occurring within 6 months of termination of pregnancy were
collected, and medical examiner records for only certain
causes of death were reviewed.
This article, based on Maryland resident data for the years
1993-1998, presents more comprehensive data on pregnancy-
associated deaths since it includes all deaths occurring
during pregnancy or within a year of termination of
pregnancy. In addition, medical examiner records for all
women of reproductive age who died during the study period,
regardless of cause of death, were reviewed to identify
pregnancy-associated deaths.
methods
Data for this analysis were collected from the following 3
sources: (1) review of death certificates to identify those
records on which a complication of pregnancy, childbirth, or
the puerperium (ICD-9 codes 630-676) was listed as an
underlying or contributing cause of death; (2) linkage of
death certificates of reproductive-age women with
corresponding live birth and fetal death records to identify
a pregnancy within the year preceding death; and (3) review
of medical examiner records for evidence of pregnancy.
Vital records data were obtained from the Vital Statistics
Administration of the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene. Identification of pregnancy-associated deaths
through linkage of vital records was accomplished by matching
death certificates for all women of reproductive age against
live birth and fetal death records to identify pregnancies
occurring in the year preceding death. Successful linkage of
records was achieved by matching either mother's Social
Security number or mother's name and date of birth on the
death record with corresponding information on live birth and
fetal death records. All linked records were manually
reviewed to ensure accurate matching of records.
Medical examiner records, which include autopsy reports and
police records, were reviewed for all 4195 women aged 10 to
50 years whose deaths were investigated by the medical
examiner during the study period. Maryland law mandates that
the medical examiner investigate all deaths that occur by
violence, suicide, casualty, unexpectedly, or in any
suspicious or unusual manner. Death certificates were
obtained for 116 women for whom medical examiner records
indicated evidence of pregnancy.
With the exception of 1 death to a 14-year-old adolescent,
all deaths identified through medical examiner records
occurred among women who were within the traditional
reproductive age group of 15 to 44 years. All deaths
identified through death certificates and record linkage were
among women between the ages of 15 and 44 years.
All death records that did not identify a maternal cause as
the underlying cause of death (n = 184) were reviewed by
trained nosologists to determine the underlying cause of
death that would have been assigned if a history of pregnancy
had been reported on the death certificate. Nosologists were
provided with information on pregnancy outcome and, if
available, the date of delivery, date of pregnancy
termination, or gestational age. Revised underlying cause-of-
death information was used to categorize data by cause of
death.
RESULTS
A total of 247 pregnancy-associated deaths occurring
between 1993 and 1998 were identified from the 3 data
sources. Sixty-seven pregnancy-associated deaths (27.1%) were
identified through cause-of-death information obtained from
death certificates. Sixty-two of these records listed
pregnancy complications as the underlying cause of death; the
remaining 5 certificates listed pregnancy complications as a
contributing, but not underlying, cause of death. Linkage of
records identified 174 (70.4%) of all pregnancy-associated
deaths and review of medical examiner records resulted in the
identification of 116 (47.0%) deaths (Table 1).
TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY PREGNANCY OUTCOME AND SOURCES OF DATA, MARYLAND, 1993-1998
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources of data
-----------------------------------
Pregnancy outcome Total Medical
deaths Death Record examiner
certificates linkage records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All outcomes..................................................... 247 67 174 116
Live births.................................................... 182 46 172 60
Fetal death.................................................... 5 3 2 4
Therapeutic abortion........................................... 1 0 0 1
Undelivered.................................................... 53 12 0 50
Ectopic pregnancy............................................ 7 7 0 5
Molar pregnancy.............................................. 1 1 0 1
All other undelivered........................................ 45 4 0 44
Unknown........................................................ 6 6 0 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination of pregnancy,
regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from
more than 1 source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths.
Sixty-five percent (n = 160) of pregnancy-associated deaths
were identified through a single surveillance method. One
hundred two (41.3%) were identified only through linkage of
records, 45 (18.2%) only through review of medical examiner
records, and 13 (5.3%) only through cause-of-death
information provided on death certificates. Thirty-five
percent of pregnancy-associated deaths were identified
through more than 1 data source (n = 87).
One hundred eighty-two (73.7%) of the 247 pregnancy-
associated deaths identified in this study followed a live
birth, 5 (2.0%) followed a fetal death, 1 followed a
therapeutic abortion, and 53 (21.4%) occurred among women who
were pregnant at the time of death. Of the 53 deaths that
occurred among pregnant women, 7 were the result of ruptured
ectopic pregnancies and 1 resulted from a molar pregnancy
(Table 1). Eighty-four (34.0%) deaths occurred within 42 days
of delivery or termination of pregnancy, and 103 (41.7%)
deaths occurred 43 to 365 days following delivery or
termination of pregnancy. The time of death was unknown for 7
women (Table 2).
TABLE 2--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY CAUSE OF DEATH, SOURCE OF DATA, AND TIME OF DEATH, MARYLAND 1993-1998 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sources Death certificates Record linkage Medical examiner records
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After delivery of After delivery or After delivery or After delivery or
Cause of death termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy termination of pregnancy
Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------- Total \2\ During -------------------------
pregnancy 42 d pregnancy 42 d Pregnancy 42 d Pregnancy 42 d
43-365 d 43-365 d 43-365 d 43-365 d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All causes.............................. 247 53 84 103 67 12 45 3 174 0 71 103 116 50 48 16
Homicide................................ 50 23 3 24 0 0 0 0 27 0 3 24 25 23 1 1
Cardiovascular.......................... 48 5 21 18 13 2 6 1 36 0 18 18 30 5 15 8
Embolism................................ 21 5 14 2 11 1 9 1 14 0 12 2 14 5 8 1
accidents \3\........................... 18 6 2 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 10 9 6 2 1
Hemorrhage.............................. 17 7 9 0 16 7 8 0 5 0 5 0 10 5 5 0
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy..... 16 0 15 1 14 0 13 1 16 0 15 1 10 0 9 1
Infection............................... 16 0 7 8 4 0 3 0 15 0 7 8 3 0 2 1
Neoplasms............................... 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
Substance abuse......................... 13 1 3 9 1 0 1 0 11 0 2 9 4 1 2 1
Suicide................................. 7 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 2 0 1
All other causes........................ 26 4 10 11 8 2 5 0 19 0 8 11 8 3 4 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination pregnancy, regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from more than 1
source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths ascertained from all sources.
\2\ Totals include 7 deaths for which the time of death was unknown.
\3\ Includes deaths from motor vehicle collisions, falls, drowning, and other unintentional injuries.
The leading cause of pregnancy-associated death was
homicide (n=50). All homicides were identified through record
linkage or review of medical examiner records rather than
from death certificates, as would be expected since homicide
is not a maternal cause of death. Deaths from cardiovascular
disorders, the second leading cause of death (n=48), were
identified through all 3 data sources, although no single
source was able to identify all deaths. Of the 26 deaths from
cardiovascular disorders that occurred during pregnancy or
within 42 days of delivery and should therefore have been
classified as maternal deaths, only 8 were identified through
death certificates. A substantial proportion of deaths from
other maternal causes, including embolism and infection,
could not be identified from death certificates since the
physicians filling out the certificates failed to report that
the women were pregnant or had recent pregnancies (Table 2).
All maternal deaths, by definition, occurred during
pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery or termination of
pregnancy. This included most deaths from embolism,
hemorrhage, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as well
as a substantial proportion of
[[Page H1625]]
deaths resulting from cardiovascular disorders and infection.
Homicide was responsible for the majority of deaths during
pregnancy (23 [43.4%]) and during the 43- to 365-day period
following delivery or termination of pregnancy (24 [23.3%]),
but accounted for only a small proportion of deaths occurring
within 42 days of pregnancy (3 [3.6%]), when obstetric causes
were responsible for most pregnancy-associated deaths.
Cardiovascular disorders (n=21) were the leading cause of
death in the 42-day period following delivery or termination
of pregnancy and the second leading cause of death (n=18),
following homicide, in the late postpartum period (Table 2).
Homicide, the leading cause of pregnancy-associated death,
was responsible for 20.2% of all pregnancy-associated deaths.
By comparison, homicide was the fifth leading cause of death
among Maryland women aged 14 to 44 years who had not had a
pregnancy in the year preceding death and was responsible for
457 (6.4%) of total deaths among this group (z=7.737,
P<.001). The pregnant group was younger and included a higher
percentage of African American women than the nonpregnant
group, factors that are associated with higher rates of
homicide independent of pregnancy. However, these factors did
not explain the higher proportion of homicide deaths in the
pregnant group. While adjustment for race and maternal age
increased the proportion of deaths due to homicide to 11.2%
among women who had not been pregnant in the year preceding
death, the adjusted figure was still significantly lower than
the figure of 20.2% among women who had been pregnant
(z=4.349, P<.001).
comment
The use of multiple data sources substantially enhances
pregnancy mortality surveillance because no single source can
identify all pregnancy-associated deaths. Death certificates
are designed to collect only a small subset of pregnancy-
associated deaths. Even these deaths are frequently not
included in maternal mortality statistics because physicians
completing death certificates fail to provide the information
needed to correctly classify a maternal death. Analysis of
data in this report indicated that 30 (34.5%) of the 87
deaths meeting the WHO definition of a maternal death could
not be identified through cause-of-death information reported
by physicians on the death certificate. Data linkage is an
additional tool for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths,
but it is limited to those deaths with a reported outcome,
such as a live birth or fetal death. Medical examiner records
are the most useful source for identifying pregnancy-
associated deaths among women who have not delivered at the
time of death.
Data linkage and review of medical examiner records
contribute substantially to identification of pregnancy-
associated mortality. In Maryland, this led to the disturbing
finding that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more
likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other
cause. Other reports have identified homicide as a cause of
pregnancy-associated death. However, none of these studies
reported on pregnancy-associated deaths from other causes as
well, and therefore could not provide a ranking of deaths by
cause.
Although we have shown that homicide is responsible for a
greater proportion of deaths among pregnant and postpartum
women than among women who have not been pregnant in the year
preceding death, our findings do not address the issue of
whether the homicide rate is higher among pregnant and
postpartum women in general than among women who have not had
recent pregnancies. This highlights a well-recognized
limitation of proportional mortality statistics, ie, that
these statistics include only individuals who die, not those
at risk of dying. Therefore, no direct inferences regarding
increased homicide rates for all pregnant women can be made
using only proportional mortality statistics.
The question of whether the homicide rate is higher among
pregnant and postpartum women than among women who have not
had recent pregnancies could be answered by comparing
mortality rates in the 2 groups. However, a methodology for
computing pregnancy-associated mortality rates and mortality
rates for nonpregnant women has not yet been established
because of complexities in determining the number of pregnant
women in a population. Since a woman may experience more than
1 pregnancy and more than 1 pregnancy outcome (live birth,
fetal loss, or induced abortion) in a given time period, the
number of pregnant women cannot be computed by summing the
number of pregnancy outcomes. Even if the number of pregnant
women could be estimated, an additional issue that would have
to be addressed is how to adjust mortality rates to account
for differences in the time period of risk of death in the 2
populations. It is important that increased efforts be placed
on development of appropriate methodologies for calculating
pregnancy-associated mortality rates so that the questions
raised by this article may be addressed.
The findings of this article also suggest that maternal
mortality review committees should investigate homicides
occurring during pregnancy and in the postpartum period to
determine potential relationships between these events. For
example, a homicide resulting from domestic violence may be
related to the stress of pregnancy. Similarly, a suicide soon
after delivery may result from postpartum depression. By
broadening pregnancy mortality to include all possible
causes, factors previously neglected may assume increased
importance in prenatal and postpartum care.
Despite the use of enhanced surveillance techniques, it is
likely that some pregnancy-associated deaths remain
undetected, particularly those occurring in women who were
pregnant at the time of death. Since autopsies are performed
on all homicide victims, it is more likely that pregnancy
would be detected among these women that among women dying
from other causes, who are less likely to be autopsied. Since
Maryland law mandates that the medical examiner investigate
deaths among individuals who were in apparent good health at
the time of death, which describes most pregnant women, the
majority of deaths among these women should have been
investigated by the medical examiner. Autopsies were in fact
performed more frequently among women with recognized
pregnancy-associated deaths who died from causes other than
homicide (123 [62.4%]) than among women of reproductive age
without recognized pregnancies (6696 [30.6%]). However, it is
still possible that some pregnancies remain undetected, which
could have an impact on the total number of pregnancy-
associated deaths as well as on the distribution of deaths by
pregnancy outcome, time of death, or cause of death.
Efforts are being made in Maryland to improve the
identification of pregnancy-associated deaths. Recent
legislation mandates that health care professionals and
facilities report all pregnancy-associated deaths to the
Maryland Maternal Mortality Review Program. In addition, the
Maryland death certificate was revised in 2001 to include
questions about current or recent pregnancies. Currently,
only 17 states and New York City have a pregnancy check box
or ask about pregnancy status on their death certificates.
Use of pregnancy question by all states on the revised US
Standard Certificate of Death has been recommended to the
National Center for Health Statistics by the Panel to
Evacuate the US Standard Certificates and Reports. Such a
change, which would be consistent with a recommendation of
the World Health Assembly in the International Classification
of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10),\13\ would substantially
improve ascertainment of pregnancy on death certificates. If
approved by the US Department of Health and Human Services,
states could adopt the pregnancy question in the 2003
revision of their death certificates. This change should help
to identify deaths that remain difficult to detect, such as
deaths that cannot be identified through linkage of records
and deaths among women who had not delivered that are not
reported to the medical examiner. However, it would be a
service, as well as good medical practice, if physicians made
a greater effort to report pregnancy as a factor contributing
to death when appropriate.
Comprehensive identification of pregnancy-associated deaths
can only be accomplished by collecting information from
multiple data sources and including all deaths occurring up
to 1 year after pregnancy termination. Through such enhanced
surveillance, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene has shown that the number of pregnancy-associated
deaths is substantially higher and causes of death
substantially broader than previously believed. Enhanced
surveillance of pregnancy-associated deaths is necessary to
accurately document the magnitude of pregnancy mortality,
identify groups at increased risk of death, review factors
leading to the death, and plan prevention strategies. It is
therefore a critical step in the reduction of pregnancy-
associated mortality.
references
1. World Health Organization. ``Manual of the International
Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes
of Death.'' Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,
1977.
2. Dye TD, Gordon H, Held B, Tolliver NJ, Holmes, AP.
Retrospective maternal mortality case ascertainment in West
Virginia, 1985 to 1989. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167: 72-
76.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy-
related mortality--Georgia, 1990-1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep. 1995; 44:93-96.
4. Atrash HK, Alexander S. Berg CJ. Maternal mortality in
developed countries; not just a concern of the past. Obstet
Gynecol. 1995; 86:700-705.
5. Atrash HK, Rowley D, Hogue CJR. Maternal and perinatal
mortality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4:61-71.
6. Starzyk P, Frost F, Kobayashi JM. Misclassification of
maternal deaths--Washington State. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
1986; 35:621-623.
7. Jocums SB, Berg CJ, Entman SS, Mitchell EF. Post-
delivery mortality in Tennessee, 1989-91, Obstet Gynecol.
1998; 91:767-770.
8. Floyd V, Hadley C, Lavoie M, Toomey K. Pregnancy-related
mortality--Georgia, 1990-92. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995;
44:93-97.
9. Comas A, Navarro A. Carrera A, et al. Maternal mortality
surveillance--Puerto Rico, 1989. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
1991; 40:521-523.
10. Allen MH, Chavkin W, Jarinoff J. Ascertainment of
maternal deaths in New York City. Am J Public Health. 1991;
81:382-384.
11. Dietz PM, Rochat RW, Thompson BL, Berg CJ, Griffin GW.
Differences in the risk of homicide and other fatal injuries
between postpartum women and other women of childbearing age:
implications for prevention, Am J Public Health. 1998;
88:641-643.
[[Page H1626]]
12. Parsons LH, Harper MA. Violent maternal deaths in North
Carolina. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94:990-993.
13. World Health Organization. ``International
Classification of Diseases,'' 10th Revision (ICD-10). Geneva
Switzerland World Health Organization; 1992.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first let me disabuse the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of his notion that those of us who voted
for the bill to bar capital punishment for pregnant women were
recognizing the fetus or the unborn child as a person.
I vote against anything to limit capital punishment. I would say to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am opposed to
capital punishment. I think it is barbaric whether it is against
pregnant women or barbaric against nonpregnant women.
Mr. Speaker, violence against pregnant women is first and foremost a
criminal act of violence against the women that deserves strong
preventive measures and stiff punishment.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) referred to the article in
the Journal of the American Medical Association that said homicides
during pregnancy and the year after are the largest cause of death
among women, and they are.
Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes
continue to occur, it is a disgrace that Congress fails with this
largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to
deal with the problem. Why, for example, did the Republican majority
fall $209 million short of President Clinton's request last year for
full funding of the Violence Against Women Act? Why did the Republicans
on the Committee on the Judiciary vote against an amendment for full
funding of the Violence Against Women Act? If we are concerned about
violence against women and pregnant women and murders of pregnant
women, as the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates,
that is how to prevent it, by early intervention, by preventing the
crime, not by fighting about the legal definition of the fetus from a
legal point of view.
Are the Members who vote for this legislation today going to join the
rest of us in seeking full funding for the Violence Against Women Act
in the next fiscal year? Will they fight efforts to zero out for the
second year in a row programs authorized by the Committee on the
Judiciary last year to prevent such violence?
No one who listened to the testimony at our subcommittee could have
been left unmoved by the terrible story of the young woman who was
murdered by her intimate partner in the eighth month of pregnancy. I
think we owe it to her and to the many women like her to ensure that
early intervention is available that would prevent us and that States
and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women
Act to prevent murders like this by intervening before the violence
escalates to that level.
We should also enact strong penalties, ones which are enforceable,
which are not constitutionally suspect, which will not lead to lengthy
litigation for these violent crimes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women
or restraining them physically for the sake of a fetus. Some courts
have already experimented with this approach. Just a few weeks ago, the
Supreme Court struck down a practice in the home State of the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) where a hospital would give the
results of a pregnant woman's blood test to local law enforcement for
the purpose of initiating legal action against them if they had used
crack. Once we recognize the two-cell zygote or even a blastocyst just
implanted in the womb as having the same legal status as a pregnant
woman, it would logically follow that the liberty interest of the
mother could be restricted to protect the fetus.
Do not believe the rhetoric that this is not an abortion bill. Women
are already being prosecuted and imprisoned by courts, including courts
in the sponsor's own State, in order to protect the fetuses.
The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to protect the liberty interests
of these women. The women who sit in prison today can say what the
legal consequences of making fetuses crime victims recognized in law
really are. They can say what the real agenda is. The real agenda is to
subject women's liberty to the interests of the fetus and to make the
fetus accepted as a person, and that is why this is an abortion bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the author of the bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been a spirited debate, a lively
debate. I think it is good for the country to have this debate. I hate
to interrupt good stories with facts and law, but I guess I will.
I am going to go red herring fishing. That is a hard thing to catch;
but when one catches it, they have something.
A couple of red herrings that I think have been thrown out here about
the bill: this is an abortion bill. If this is an abortion bill, it is
one of the worst-drafted abortion bills one could think of. It does a
lousy job, and let me read from the bill: ``Nothing in this section
shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct
relating to an abortion, for which the consent of the pregnant woman or
person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law.''
{time} 1200
If we are trying to outlaw abortions, we did a pretty lousy job in
that paragraph. ``Nothing in this section shall allow the prosecution
of any person for medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn
child; or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.''
Why is that language in there? The purpose of this bill is very
simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that
child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, we want
to put them in jail for the damage done to the unborn child.
This is not a two-victim bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) is right. The reason it is not a two-victim bill is because
there are laws all over the country preventing assaults against women
who are pregnant in their own States. There are 24 States that make it
a separate offense to take her unborn child's life. At the Federal
level, there is no such law. There soon will be.
That will coexist with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade has never stood for
the proposition that the State or Federal Government cannot protect the
unborn against violent criminal activity. It stood for the proposition
that the Federal-State government cannot interfere with a woman's right
to choose an abortion first trimester and under certain circumstances
thereafter.
Why did 254 Members of this body last year vote for this bill? All of
them are not pro-life. I happen to be pro-life. Why would a pro-choice
person vote for my bill? I think they have sat down and read it, and
they understand a couple of things about the bill, and I want to
applaud them for doing it. We may disagree on a woman's right to
choose, and America splits evenly on that. If you disagree with me on
that issue, I will not question your politics, your religion, or your
patriotism. I have my view; you have yours.
But here is what I am so excited about from last year's vote, and
hopeful for this year that Congress has come together on this central
theme, that once a woman chooses to have the baby, we are going to
protect the baby and the mother. This body spends millions of dollars a
year helping women through pregnancy. Low-income women get help from
the Federal Government to make sure the child is fully developed. We
help at-risk pregnancies. That is a good thing. That is not a bad
thing. That is not about the abortion debate.
I think most Americans, even though we divide on the issue of
abortion, would come together on the issue that if a woman has the
child and some criminal takes that right away from the woman, we ought
to put them in jail to the fullest extent of the law. That is what we
do, and that is what 24 other States do.
Another red herring about the definition: The definition in this bill
is exactly what exists in 11 other States and it withstood
constitutional challenge and it is exactly what the House voted on on
July 25, 2000.
[[Page H1627]]
Let me tell you how important that is. 417-0, the House came together
and said we are not going to execute a pregnant woman. Why? Does that
infringe on Roe v. Wade? No. I think there would be riots in the
streets in this country, from pro-choice and pro-life people, if a
pregnant woman was executed, because nothing good is served. No public
policy is advanced by taking that unborn child's life. We have not
helped anybody. We have done a bad thing, not a good thing.
So let us come together and do a good thing. Let us put criminals in
jail who assault pregnant women to the fullest extent of the law, no
more, no less, and my bill does that.
The definition will withstand constitutional scrutiny. It is a matter
of proof. The two-cell zygote defense is a red herring. It is the same
definition the body voted on before. It is the burden of proof problem
for every prosecutor. If you said you could be prosecuted after 6 weeks
of pregnancy, you would have to prove that the pregnancy existed longer
than 6 weeks. Prosecutors can do those things, and defense attorneys
will have their objections.
This bill is well drafted. It makes a lot of common sense. It is not
about the abortion debate; it is about America coming together
protecting unborn life when we find consensus.
We should be looking for consensus, from adoption to this bill, to
partial-birth abortion, to bring life into the world where we can. And
when we have these debates about a woman's right to choose, I honor
your right to disagree with me, but that is not today. Today is about
bringing the country together, this body together, to put people in
jail that deserve to go.
As to the question does this really happen, let me tell you, it
happens more than I thought it did. When I was a prosecutor in the Air
Force, we had a handful of cases of pregnant women being assaulted and
losing their child. There was no statute to prosecute them for
that. That was frustrating. If this bill passes, they will have those
tools.
Timothy McVeigh will be in the news again soon, and I respect the
view of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on the death penalty.
I disagree with that. But we will be reminded about Oklahoma City soon.
You may not know this, but three women in that building were
pregnant. One of them was the wife of Michael Lenz. They had a sonogram
of the baby, she is showing it to office workers. The next day she goes
to work, the building is blown up, she is killed, and the baby is lost.
Mr. Lenz came to Congress 2 years ago and told us, ``That day will mark
me for life, but that day I lost two things, not one. I lost the mother
of my child, my wife, but I also lost Michael Lenz, III.''
Without this bill, there is no recognition of him as being a victim
of Oklahoma City. He should have been a victim, because he was wanted
by the family and his life was taken away through an act of violence.
That person should go to jail for that act of violence.
I will tell you later why the substitute does not get us to where we
need to go. It is not the way the law is trending here.
But read the bill, think about what we are trying to do. And to those
pro-choice Members of Congress who voted for this bill last year, thank
you. Thank you for coming together and having a rational debate on how
to protect the unborn without getting into the abortion debate. I want
to thank you very much.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the author of this bill, the
gentleman from South Carolina who just spoke, know that what he claimed
as a red herring really is not a red herring at all. The threat to Roe
v. Wade made in this bill cannot be made more clear because this bill
contradicts the definition of who a person is by writing it the way
they did.
The Court, in Roe, recognized the woman's right to have an abortion
as a right protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of
whether a fetus is a person, the Court noted, ``Except in narrowly
defined situations, the unborn have never been recognized in law as
persons in the whole sense,'' and concluded ``person'' as used in the
14th amendment does not include the unborn. The Court declined to grant
fetuses the status of person because it recognized the difficulty in
finding an end point to rights that the fetus might claim.
The current bill raises those same issues. In the 28 years since Roe,
the Supreme Court has never afforded legal personhood to a fetus; and
that, I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is
what the problem is about the bill; that, I would say to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), is what the problem is about the bill; that, I
would say to my dear chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), is what the problem is about the bill.
The gentlemen are contradicting the definition of ``person'' by
writing it in the way that they have. That is why the gentlewoman from
California had to write a substitute, because we had to get that
corrected. As a matter of fact, we go further to prosecute an assailant
of a pregnant woman than you do.
So, let us not talk about that being a red herring. That is what the
debate is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank particularly the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for doing an excellent job
on shepherding this legislation through, as well as the chairman of our
committee.
Yesterday I had a conversation in my office with a lady who is a
student at Georgetown University; and I thought, well, I will just ask
her her view of this legislation. I said, have you looked at this, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act? She said she had.
I said what is your view on it? She said she supported it. I said are
you pro-choice or pro-life? She said I am pro-choice.
So here is a pro-choice lady, a student at Georgetown University,
very thoughtful, who recognized the importance of protecting women by
extending the protection in this instance to the loss of the unborn
child.
I asked her why, and she explained it particularly in those words,
that there is nothing more important whenever you have someone commit a
violent act against a pregnant woman than that they be held accountable
for all of the loss that occurs.
I think this is a thoughtful person. I think she describes where we
should be able to come together, whether it is pro-choice or pro-life,
that this is something we should be able to unite together on.
I believe it simply follows the leads of a variety of States that
have already given legal protection in the circumstance where a
pregnant woman is attacked and there is the loss of the unborn child.
Arkansas is a great example of that.
Many people have referred to the case of Shawana Pace. It was my
nephew, Representative Jim Hendren, who sponsored the fetal protection
law in the Arkansas General Assembly, and I am thankful that was
passed, because that law allowed the perpetrators of the violence
against Shawana Pace to be prosecuted.
It was simply an assault upon her, but it was the intentional death
of that unborn child, literally days before that child was born, with
the words saying, ``Today, your child will die.'' It was an intentional
act. Other than under the fetal protection law, they could not have
been prosecuted. So I think it does credit to the women.
The argument is made here that well, we are not fully supporting the
Violence Against Women Act. I just want to tell my colleagues I have
written to the appropriators and asked them to fully fund the Violence
Against Women Act. I joined in the news conference for that purpose. I
think it is very important, and you are right to raise the level of
attention to the importance of the Violence Against Women Act. We need
to join together. But that should not be a reason not to support this
legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his
[[Page H1628]]
latest observation. Now, with the woman that visited his office, and
his asking her unsolicited opinion, did the gentleman ask her what she
thought about the Lofgren substitute?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me continue on
with the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. CONYERS. Did the gentleman ask her?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I did not ask her, sir. I did not.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for
what it is, not for what it claims to be.
On its face this bill could seem as an attempt to provide protections
for pregnant women from assault and to provide prosecutors with another
tool to punish those who cause the non-consensual termination of a
pregnancy. However, on closer examination, this bill sets the stage for
a legislative assault on Roe v. Wade by treating a fetus from the
moment of conception as an individual with extensive legal rights,
distinct from the mother.
Every time a criminal causes injury or death through violence, it is
a tragedy. But we must all acknowledge that an attack against an unborn
child is necessarily an attack against a pregnant woman. Unfortunately,
rather than supporting tougher laws against domestic violence, sexual
assault and battery, we are instead debating a bill that does not even
recognize the harm to a pregnant woman.
I have heard some Members debating talk about stories of people they
have met. I remember in the Wisconsin legislature hearing the personal
story of a woman who was beaten when pregnant and lost her child. She
was also beaten right after she first got married and beaten before her
pregnancy and beaten in the early stages of pregnancy. If we had tough
enough laws against violence against women, it would not have created
that result.
I am a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act which expands
protections for women against callous acts of violence. I believe we
would be much better served by laws to protect women, pregnant or not,
from violence, instead of establishing an entirely new legal framework
to protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime, we are
diverting attention from the victimized women.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and support
the Lofgren amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, one thing that makes America great
is its longstanding tradition to defend those incapable of defending
themselves. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the proverb to ``Speak up
for those who cannot speak for themselves.''
It is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of society, and I
believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does just that. Currently,
when someone commits a crime in which a woman and her preborn baby are
harmed, the accused can only be prosecuted for harm to the mother. This
sends the wrong message. It says there is only one victim in this
situation, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two
victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her preborn baby.
{time} 1215
My colleagues who oppose this bill want to offer a substitute that
would recognize the mother as a victim, but not the baby. I would like
to remind them again that half the States do not agree; fully 24 have
homicide laws that recognize unborn victims.
Furthermore, and I know we discussed this today, I would like to
bring to my colleagues' attention a similar act that took place in the
House last year. It was in July of last year that we voted 417-0 to
deny Federal funds to execute pregnant women. This bill specifically
protects a ``member of the species homo sapien at any stage of the
development who is carried in the womb.''
If we are willing to protect preborn babies from Federal execution,
why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life without facing
specific penalty?
Let me say it again: If we are willing to protect preborn babies from
Federal execution, why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life
without facing specific penalties?
Those who say they believe in choice should be the strongest
advocates of this bill. After all, any criminal who harms a preborn
baby has interfered with a woman's choice to carry that baby to term.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defend
those who cannot defend themselves.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, let us be candid. This debate is all about
preserving the woman's right of choice. It is about preserving a
woman's right of choice at the beginning of this debate, it is about
preserving a woman's right of choice at the middle of this debate, and
at the conclusion of this debate, it will be all about preserving a
woman's right of choice.
The women of America who are afraid of losing that right sincerely,
and rightfully so, understand this debate. They understand that if the
desire of this Chamber is to punish, to give jail time, to give long
periods of incarceration to any heinous criminal who attacks a pregnant
woman, we would pass a bill that would do that with 435 votes, and the
bill that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has brought
before us does exactly that.
Now, why cannot intelligent members of this House, 435, come together
on a bill that does exactly that? Why can we not design a bill like
that?
The reason is that certain folks who want to take away a woman's
right of choice. And I understand that their beliefs are sincere, and I
respect their beliefs, but their beliefs do not respect the U.S.
Constitution. Those folks have proposed language that is trying to set
the stage to end the right of choice in this country. It is a
calculated, concerted, and long-term plan to do that.
Let me tell my colleagues why that is important. Every morning I walk
by the U.S. Supreme Court building. I live right across the street from
the Supreme Court building, and every morning I look at that building,
and when one looks at that building, one understands that if one vote
changes, as the current President of the United States will attempt to
do, there will be no longer constitutional protection in this country
for a woman's right of choice, and that issue will be here in this
Chamber.
Those who resist the approach of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren), those who resist the thing that would get 435 votes, those
who resist the approach that brings union, not disunion, to this
Chamber, seek to set the stage for a legislative taking away of a
woman's right of choice as soon as the Supreme Court's protection for a
woman's right of choice is taken away from American women. That is what
this debate is about.
Support the Lofgren amendment. That is the goal we want to pursue,
with 435 votes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is dead wrong. This is
similar to bills that have been enacted into law in many States, and
anybody who is charged for killing an unborn child would have used that
constitutional argument as a defense. In no State has a Federal court
or a State court struck down a similar law.
The woman who is assaulted and whose unborn child has been killed or
maimed has already made her choice, and that is to bear that child. Why
do we not respect the choice that that woman has made?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. DeMint).
(Mr. DeMINT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I commend the gentleman from South
Carolina for introducing this legislation.
Let us consider for a moment the human side of this legislation. A
friend of mine and his wife tried for years to
[[Page H1629]]
conceive a child. They had almost given up when unexpectedly they
conceived twins, a double blessing. If someone had assaulted or
otherwise committed a crime of violence against her that killed these
children, one cannot tell me that punishment should only occur for the
crime against the woman when the unborn children were the innocent
victims of the violence. If these two lovely children that the couple
had longed for had tragically died in the commission of a crime of
violence, the criminal must be held accountable.
This legislation takes the important step of recognizing that
violence against an unborn child against the will of the mother, taking
away the mother's right to choose, can be prosecuted in a court of law.
This is not a new concept. In fact, over half of the States in this
Nation have State laws which protect unborn victims of violence in some
form. I have with me today a list of these State homicide laws that
recognize unborn victims, which will be inserted into the Record.
This legislation would not supersede those State laws, nor would it
impose a new law for crimes which are under State jurisdiction. Rather,
this bill recognizes an unborn child as a victim in the eyes of Federal
criminal law.
Currently, if a criminal injures or kills an unborn child during the
course of a violent Federal crime, he has not committed an additional
offense, other than the violent crime. But that is not fair. If an
unborn child dies because of a violent act perpetrated against his or
her mother, then the criminal must be held accountable.
We have heard about an amendment to this legislation which would take
away the recognition that a violent crime has occurred against an
unborn child. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote against this weakening amendment.
The title of this bill describes exactly what this bill is about:
unborn victims of violence. This bill works to correct an unjust
situation in which the life of an unborn child is lost, and there are
no legal repercussions. I challenge my colleagues again on both sides
of the aisle and on both sides of the abortion issue to hold criminals
accountable for their violent crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me today and
vote in favor of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims
full-coverage unborn victim states (11) (States with homicide laws that
recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of pre-natal
development)
Arizona--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of
pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Sec. 13-1103(A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
Illinois--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary
manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless
homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, Sec. Sec. 5/9-1.2, 5/9-
2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993).
Louisiana--The killing of an ``unborn child'' is first
degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree
feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 14:32.5-14.32.8, read
with Sec. Sec. 14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).
Minnesota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third
degree) or manslaughter (first or second degree). It is also
a felony to cause the death of an ``unborn child'' during the
commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 609.266,
609.2661-609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an
``unborn child'' through operation of a motor vehicle is
criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 609.21
(West 1999).
Missouri--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first
degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. Sec. Sec. 1.205, 565.024,
565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2d 345
(Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W. 2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D.
1997).
North Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder,
manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code
Sec. Sec. 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).
Ohio--At any stage of pre-natal development, if an ``unborn
member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in
the womb of another'' is killed, it is aggravated murder,
murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter,
negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and
vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 2903.01 to
2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).
Pennsylvania--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is first, second, or third-
degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. Sec. Sec. 2601 to 2609 (1998).
South Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any
stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide,
manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann.
Sec. 22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41,
read with Sec. Sec. 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A)(Supp. 1997).
Utah--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of
pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah
Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998).
Wisconsin--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage
of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional
homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree
intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide,
homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon,
explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or
firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis.
Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02,
940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).
partial-coverage unborn victim states (13) (states with homicide laws
that recognize unborn children as victims, but only during part of the
period of pre-natal development)
Note: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not
recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods
of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are
described here for informational purposes.
Arkansas--The killing of an ``unborn child'' of twelve
weeks or greater gestation is murder, manslaughter, or
negligent homicide. Enacted April 9, 1999, 1999 AR H.B. 1329.
(A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury
to a woman during a felony or Class A misdemeanor to cause
her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause
injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to
human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.)
California--The killing of an unborn child after the
embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 187(a) (West
1999).
Florida--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.09 (West 1992).
The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular
homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.071 (West 1999).
Georgia--The killing of an ``unborn child'' after
quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by
vessel. Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 16-5-80 (1996); Sec. 40-6-393.1
(1997); and Sec. 52-7-12.3 (1997).
Massachusetts--The killing of an unborn child after
viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467
N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child
after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v.
Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).
Michigan--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 28.554 (Callaghan 1990).
The Supreme Court of Michigan has interpreted this statute to
apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v.
Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). (A separate Michigan
law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for
actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard
for consequences, cause a ``miscarriage or stillbirth,'' or
cause physical injury to an ``embryo or fetus.'')
Mississippi--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-37 (1994).
Nevada--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 200.210 (1997).
Oklahoma--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, Sec. 713 (West 1983).
The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide.
Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
Rhode Island--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. The statute defines ``quick child'' to mean a
viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 11-23-5 (1994).
South Carolina--The killing of an unborn child after
viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C.
1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998).
Tennessee--The killing of an unborn child after viability
is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary
manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide.
Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-
211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).
Washington--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is
manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West
Supp. 1999).
states without unborn victims laws, which instead criminalize certain
conduct that ``terminates a human pregnancy'' or that causes a
miscarriage (7)
Note: These laws are gravely deficient, because they do not
recognize unborn children as victims, nor allow justice to be
done on their behalf. These laws are included here for
informational purposes.
Indiana--An individual who knowingly or intentionally
``terminates a human pregnancy'' commits feticide. Ind. Code
Ann Sec. 35-42-1-6 (Burns 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Iowa--An individual who intentionally ``terminates a human
pregnancy'' without the consent of the pregnant woman commits
a felony. This law also sets forth other crimes involving the
termination of a human pregnancy, such as during the
commission of a forcible felony. Iowa Code Ann Sec. 707.8
(West Supp. 1999).
Kansas--Injury to a pregnant woman during the commission of
a felony or misdemeanor which causes a miscarriage results
[[Page H1630]]
in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann
Sec. 21-3440 (1997). Also, injury to a pregnant woman through
the operation of a motor vehicle which causes a miscarriage
results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 21-3441 (1997).
New Hampshire--It is a felony to cause injury to another
person that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann Sec. Sec. 631:1-631:2 (1996).
New Mexico--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman
during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a
miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 30-3-7
(Michie 1994). It is also a crime to injure a pregnant woman
through the unlawful operation of a vehicle which causes her
to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann
Sec. Sec. 66-8-101.1 (Michie 1998).
North Carolina--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman
during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a
miscarriage or stillbirth. It is a misdemeanor to cause a
miscarriage or stillbirth during a misdemeanor act of
domestic violence. N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-18.2 (Supp. 1998).
Virginia--The premeditated killing of a pregnant woman with
the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is
capital murder. Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31 (Michie Supp. 1998).
The unpremeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the
intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is also a
crime. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-32.1 (Michie Supp. 1998). It
is a felony to injure a pregnant woman with the intent to
maim or kill her or to terminate her pregnancy and she is
injured or her pregnancy is terminated. Va. Code Ann.
Sec. 18.2-51.2 (Michie Supp. 1998).
New York: Conflicting Statutes
New York--Under New York statutory law, the killing of an
``unborn child'' after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is
homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law Sec. 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But
under a separate statutory provision, a ``person'' that is
the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as ``a human
being who has been born and is alive.'' N.Y. Pen. Law
Sec. 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc.
2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria
C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984);
People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co.Ct. 1987).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just wanted to comment on the gentleman's argument about other
States having similar laws, and so why can we not do the same thing?
The reason we have not done the same thing is that many of these State
laws are obviously drafted differently. They do not use controversial
terms, some of them, as ``unborn child'' or ``child in utero.''
The second thing is that none of these State laws have been validated
or upheld in a Federal court, let alone a Supreme Court decision. They
have not been tested. So I do not think that gives us a presumption
that we can copy State law. I say to my colleagues, we should be
creating Federal law that States may want to pattern themselves after.
Then, we might want to take into consideration the experience with
State laws that have not been very favorable on this subject. Some of
these laws have been used as excuses to justify prosecuting women for
their conduct while they are pregnant. A whole host of problems arise
this way.
In South Carolina, ironically, now they prosecute women whose babies
are found to have drugs in their system; the mothers are prosecuted. In
another case, the court ordered into custody a pregnant woman who
refused medical care because of religious convictions, in an attempt to
ensure that the baby be born safely. We had a National Public Radio
case about a pregnant woman being forced into custody at a State
medical facility in Massachusetts to ensure that her baby was born
safely. In another case, a court sent a student to prison to prevent
her from obtaining a midterm abortion.
So I say to my colleagues, let us stop pointing recklessly to all of
these laws in State courts as if they are giving us a reason to make
the same kind of untested legislation that they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, despite the claims of my
colleagues who oppose H.R. 503, this legislation before us today is not
about abortion. It does not infringe on a woman's legal right to abort
her child. It does not place legal limitations upon those in the
medical profession who perform abortion. In fact, the only time this
bill even mentions abortion is to protect the woman's legal right to
have one, and the doctor's legal right to perform them. Yet, those who
oppose this bill would like the American people to believe that this is
an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade.
This leads me to ask my colleagues who oppose this bill, why the
smoke screen? Why are they so fearful of protecting a pregnant woman
and her unborn child? Why are they standing in the way of legislation
which provides protection for a woman against violence? Recognizing the
unborn child as a victim of crime does not affect the woman's legal
right to abort the child.
Mr. Speaker, the smoke screen of abortion used by those in opposition
to this bill will not work. The majority of Congress and the American
people know that a woman and her unborn child must be protected against
criminal acts of violence. When a pregnant woman is assaulted and
bodily harm is brought about to her unborn child, there are two
victims, not one.
This bill was not introduced to erode current abortion law. Let me
tell my colleagues why this bill was introduced. Currently, under
Federal law, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant
and thereby causes the death or injury to that unborn child, the
criminal faces no consequences for taking or injuring this unborn life.
That is why this bill is introduced, and that is why it is a tragedy
that this worthwhile piece of legislation is being muddled in abortion
politics by those who instinctively reject any bill that deals with the
child in the womb.
It is unfortunate that those in opposition to this bill today believe
that a victim such as Zachariah Marciniak, whose story has been
described previously by my colleagues, was not a child or not a human
being. I wonder how many of my colleagues would suggest that when
planning for the miracle of a birth, in painting the nursery, attending
baby showers, buying a crib and clothes, often name the child before he
or she is delivered, all in preparation for a newborn, is not
preparation for a life, a life that lives within.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe, like the father who lost his wife in
the Oklahoma City bombing, that the loss was even greater. He lost his
wife and his unborn baby. In that awful tragedy, we as a nation lost
not 168, but 171 people, as three of the women killed during that
atrocity were with child. They were murdered along with their mothers.
Consider also the fact that last year the House of Representatives
passed the Innocent Child Protection Act by a vote of 417-0. This bill
prohibited a State or Federal Government for executing a woman ``while
she carries a child in utero.'' That bill, which again passed
unanimously, defined ``child in utero'' the same way it is defined in
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If the House is, without
dissension, willing to protect unborn children from execution, why is
it controversial to also protect unborn children from a deadly assault?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, those in the gallery, those watching this debate on
national television around the Nation might assume that the reason that
we are spending these hours on the floor pursuing this legislation is
because we are trying to solve a problem, that there is somehow a
problem that exists, that out in America on Federal property women are
being assaulted, and they are losing their fetuses in those assaults,
and their perpetrators are going unpunished or going too lightly
punished.
{time} 1230
I do not think there is any evidence at all that that is the problem.
If it were, this legislation would be a priority for the police and law
enforcement officials of our country. This would be a priority for the
district attorneys in our counties. This would be a priority for the
attorneys general. This would be a priority for the coalitions against
domestic violence.
That is really not why we are here. My friend, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is a good friend of mine. I admire him
more than I admire many Members of this Congress. He is a good man.
But I think in truth we all know that this bill is here because it is
aimed at abortion politics. This bill is
[[Page H1631]]
strategized, is being pushed. The grass-roots organizations that are
pushing for this legislation are pushing it because they are part of
the anti-abortion part of this country's population.
The reason they do that is because for the last 30 years abortion has
been legal in this country and because the courts have said that,
particularly in the early stages of a woman's pregnancy, the choice of
what to do with that pregnancy is hers. It is well-established law.
How do you defeat that? You do not bring an amendment to the floor to
change the Constitution in that regard. That is not popular in this
country. So we bring bills like this, which are designed to come in the
back door, and try to define a fetus as a human being, a full person.
This is brought here for the purpose of abortion politics to
establish in law under the guise, under the obviously compelling notion
that we want to protect women against violence, when its purpose is
really quite otherwise.
If those Members who are really interested in solving this problem
will support the Lofgren amendment, this really does get tough on those
who would assault a pregnant woman; it does get tough, and does not
have the ulterior motive of trying to play abortion politics with
something as critical as a woman's assault.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members that it is not appropriate under the rules of the House to
refer to our guests in the gallery.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill. One of the reasons to
address a comment made by the prior speaker about there are not crimes
like this being committed out there, I want to cite the March edition
of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which published a
study revealing that the leading cause of death among pregnant women in
the State of Maryland was not health-related ailments, but rather,
murder.
This is not simply a case that might occur on Federal property, but
it covers a range of potential offenses where it is important for that
unborn child to be recognized, and if injured or killed, appropriate
punishment be given for that unborn child as well as the pregnant
mother. In kidnapping cases, that is a Federal offense; in drug deals
gone bad, bank robberies, and even the most recent example of Oklahoma
City and the terrorism there, and the fact that there were three unborn
children killed in that.
This type of violent act is exactly what H.R. 503 is designed to
hopefully deter. We can maybe deter some of these offenses from taking
place, and if necessary, if they occur, to appropriately punish them.
This bill will correct the failure of both Federal and military law
to treat a criminal assault against a pregnant woman as an additional
crime perpetrated against the unborn child. Currently, as has been said
numerous times today, even one who purposely kills an unborn child, who
sets out to kill that unborn child, has not committed a Federal crime,
as the law now stands.
Let me make three additional points, if I could, very quickly. This
is not an abortion vote. The sky is not falling on the issue of pro-
choice pro-life. I do not understand why people come up here and stand
and say that this is an abortion vote. I respect their opinion; but in
reading the bill, I do not understand it.
Someone maybe can connect the dots for me on this, because if this
bill is wrong, it is unconstitutional. It does not square with Roe v.
Wade. This bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade; this bill will be
held unconstitutional with Roe v. Wade being cited. So if there is a
problem there, this bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It will
be the other way around.
This act specifically excludes abortion, an abortion procedure
consented to by the mother. It also specifically excludes any action by
the mother which results in harm to the unborn child. So all these
South Carolina cases and other cases that have been cited would not
apply here. They are not covered.
To me, it should not matter whether one is pro-choice or pro-life,
one ought to be able to support this bill. As has been mentioned
several times already, this definition is something that is not new to
this House. Last year we voted 417-0 to prohibit the death penalty
being given to a pregnant woman. We use that same definition.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friend, who is a former member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, who assured us that Roe v. Wade was
not under attack, well, most people understand that it is under attack.
That is why the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
is opposed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is opposed, the
National Abortion Federation is opposed, the National Women's Law
Center is opposed.
Does the gentleman think they do not understand this bill very much?
I think they do.
The National Partnership for Women and Families, they are opposed.
The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, they are opposed. The
American Civil Liberties Union, they are opposed. The Feminist
Majority, they are opposed. The American Association of University
Women, they are opposed. The National Family Planning and Reproductive
Health Association, they are opposed. The American Women's Medical
Association, they are opposed. The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, they are opposed. The National Council of Jewish Women, they
are opposed. The National Organization for Women, they are opposed. The
Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health, they are opposed. The
People for the American Way, they are opposed.
Now, they do not understand what the Members are trying to do, do
they? They do not get it? They have misunderstood the bill of the
gentleman from South Carolina? All of these organizations, a dozen of
them, they should relax, Roe v. Wade is not under attack. The gentleman
in the well on the Republican side just told us so. It is okay. Relax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in opposition to H.R. 503.
As the mother of a pregnant daughter and the mother-in-law of a
pregnant daughter-in-law, a proud grandmother of Isabel and Eve, the
sense that somehow I do not understand the incredible mystery and magic
and holiness of a pregnancy because I do not support this legislation,
I really resent that very much.
We look forward in our family to welcoming these two new babies, and
a crime against my daughter or daughter-in-law would be absolutely
devastating, and even more so because each is pregnant. We all agree on
that.
That is the part that I do not get. We all do agree that we need to
change the law to add penalties because a crime against a pregnant
woman is really devastating. Why can we not agree on that? We have the
Motherhood Protection Act, the Lofgren amendment, that does just that,
it increases the penalties. It is not their bill or no bill. We could
agree that we should increase the penalties.
I am happy to connect the dots for the gentleman on why this is an
anti-abortion bill. It creates personhood for even a fertilized egg
equal to that of a woman. That does not make any sense. Even if she
does not know she is pregnant, that fertilized egg now has equal value
to her.
We should create law that recognizes that this is a devastating
crime, and we should increase the penalties if my daughter or my
daughter-in-law is violently assaulted. We agree on that.
Why do we not, then, move forward as a body in agreement that we
should pass this amendment? It does not detract. In fact, it increases
the deterrent against violence against women at a time when more
violence than other times occurs. Pregnancy is an incentive for
violence against women. That is when it occurs more.
Let us get together and pass the Lofgren amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
[[Page H1632]]
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, most of the Members of the House remember that I served
as a prosecutor and a judge before I came to Congress. In fact, I
served as a prosecutor with the acting Speaker this afternoon in the
State of Ohio.
I hear the cry for legislation to deal with a situation that none of
us want to happen, a situation where harm comes to a woman while she is
pregnant. I hear the cry under the veil that we as Members of Congress
have to stand up for pregnant women, and we have to do things so
nothing happens to pregnant women.
But legislation is not the only answer to help pregnant women who are
harmed. There are other ways in which we can help them. In fact, the
Violence Against Women Act legislation could have helped women in this
circumstance.
But be that as it may, as we are debating legislation, one of the
jobs of a good legislator is to make sure that when we pass the
legislation that we know it will stand up to judicial scrutiny. For
those who are the proponents of this legislation, if they only look to
it, they will recognize that it has problems to the extent that a
judiciary would send this back.
As a prosecutor, I tried my darnedest to never take a case into court
if I knew the law had a problem, because how could I explain to the
victim that I prosecuted the case with the knowledge that the law had a
problem that would not stand appellate scrutiny?
Let us look at why this legislation has some dilemmas. The provision
or key phrase ``child who is in utero'' is vague. It makes it difficult
to get before an appellate court and explain the vagueness of that
phrase.
The legislation lacks a mens rea requirement, that one did not know
or have reason to know that the woman who is the victim of the crime
was pregnant.
And then even more importantly, the legislation lacks a predicate for
the offense, that the crime against the woman be first established.
Now, to my colleagues who want to push for women who are harmed while
they are pregnant, we offer them an alternative. We offer them an
alternative that we as good legislators believe will withstand the
scrutiny of an appellate court. We offer them an alternative that
provides for the same penalty, that we believe is consistent with
current law, regardless of what is happening in the other States.
As has previously been said, let us try and be 435 strong in favor of
pregnant women who are harmed. Let us step up to the plate and say that
this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, regardless of our view on choice,
regardless of our view on many other issues, and we have not agreed on
much since we have been here in this 107th Congress, but let us choose
this legislation to agree on; that regardless of our position, we will
support the Lofgren alternative.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001. This bill will be the first, the first
in the Federal statutes, to give separate legal status to a fetus.
The proponents of the legislation claim that they are protecting the
mother, but that is not their true intention. If it were their true
intention, why would the anti-choice right-to-life groups support the
bill, and why would the domestic violence victims advocacy groups
oppose the bill?
If people were so concerned about violence against pregnant women,
why are not those pregnant women even mentioned in the bill?
{time} 1245
If the issue is about violence to women, why do the proponents of the
bill not support the Lofgren substitute, which is concerned about the
woman and her fetus? Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans are pro-
choice and they depend on this Congress to protect a woman's right to
choose while simultaneously working to make abortion a rare occurrence.
The women of this country count on us as legislators to craft Federal
policies that are really intended to protect their health and well-
being. They rely on us to pass legislation that will protect their
reproductive choices. Women depend on us to know the difference between
legislation that is truly intended to protect them and a poorly
disguised vehicle designed to reopen the debate on Roe v. Wade.
We are not fooled by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly,
neither are the women we represent. If Members of this House really
care about taking steps to protect pregnant women and to punish the
terrible perpetrators who mercilessly beat them, then we will all join
together, pro-life and pro-choice, and join hands across the aisle to
vote for the Lofgren substitute.
The Lofgren substitute actually, as we will hear, provides greater
levels of punishment to the perpetrators of the heinous crime of
harming a pregnant woman. In fact, there is only one difference between
the substitute and the underlying bill; and that underlying difference
reveals the true goal of H.R. 503. The underlying bill creates a
Federal criminal offense that provides a pregnancy from conception to
birth with a legal status separate from that of the mother.
Regardless of what we are hearing today from proponents of this
legislation, there is only one reason to support this new criminal
offense over the Lofgren substitute, and that is to take the first step
of defending a fetus at any stage of development as a person.
If the supporters of this legislation want to debate the merits of
abortion, I think we should do it out in the open. They should be
embarrassed about cloaking their true intent in an issue. They should
be embarrassed about cloaking their true intent on an issue that we all
agree upon and that we care deeply about, and that is protecting
pregnant women from violence.
But the fact is, this is intentional; and the reason is there is a
great reluctance on the part of the proponents of this bill to openly
debate the issue of a woman's right to choose in this Chamber.
Opponents of the right to choose know they are out of step with the
majority of the American public, and so they are working sideways to
begin to erode that right in our statutes.
We keep hearing that those who support this bill talk about two
victims. But what they are omitting is the fact that this act does not
mention women. So, in fact, the bill is not about two victims at all.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute improves the bill. It is a good
alternative. It punishes the perpetrators. I urge adoption of the
amendment; and if the amendment is not adopted, I urge defeat of the
ill-intentioned legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of
my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee),
a ranking subcommittee member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly discuss something that is extremely
private and extremely important. When I first came to this Congress, we
started discussing this concept called partial-birth abortion.
As a new Member, I was unaware of a procedure that was out of line of
a decision between mother and physician and God. But all of a sudden,
this Congress began to raise its head about something called partial-
birth abortion. It simply was a procedure that doctors were using to
save the lives of mothers who wanted to have children.
We come here today, as the New York Times has said, with another
scheme very personal for me, because I have had pregnancies that have
survived and those that have not. I wish I did not have to come to the
floor of the House to discuss this.
But I believe the Lofgren substitute speaks to the concern that we
have as Americans. How dare you assault a woman who is pregnant. How
dare you abuse her. How dare you take her as girlfriend or wife or
friend and abuse her and cause the loss of that pregnancy. The Lofgren
substitute answers that concern. If that woman is injured that results
in an injury to that pregnancy or a death, that means that that
pregnancy does not come to term, you will be faulted and convicted, 20
years or maximum life.
This is a scheme. Year after year after year, this is an attempt to
violate
[[Page H1633]]
Roe v. Wade. Why? Because H.R. 503 does not speak to that woman who has
been violated and abused. It simply says that we are tying it to that
embryo. Why? Because we want to say to America that we are trying to
destroy Roe v. Wade. That is a privilege of the American people. That
is the constitutional law. That is the law of the land. That is the
Supreme Court decision.
In committee, I tried to offer an amendment that would suggest to us
whether the opposing side is truly sincere; and that amendment said
that replacing unborn children in H.R. 503 to violence during
pregnancy, that gets to the issue. It says that, if there is violence
during pregnancy that resulted in the loss or injury to the woman and
then the fetus, then there would be penalty.
But, no, they refused because they want to ensure that there is no
relationship to that pregnant woman, there are no feelings about that
pregnant woman. It is only to tear apart Roe v. Wade.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional issue because it
comes to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on
the Judiciary, and the very reason is to undermine Roe v. Wade.
I have passion and I have feelings about any woman who involuntarily
is forced to lose that child that she is carrying. There is no doubt
that our hearts are pure on both sides of the aisle. But this body is
forced to follow the law. Vote for the Lofgren substitute and defeat
that bill because this is an unconstitutional attack on the right to
choose and the privacy of every American.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of H.R. 503, ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' This is an unacceptable attempt to
create a legal status for the unborn, which would could have enormous
adverse ramifications for women in America.
Let me be clear. I would like to express my opposition to H.R. 503,
``Unborn Victims of Crime Act'' because I believe this is a veiled
attempt to create a legal status for the unborn. While we would all
like to protect pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by
others, this bill seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-
abortion advocates a back door to overturning current law. I have seen
similar legislation come before our committee and I am sorry to see it
before the Congress yet again.
I believe that the cosponsors of this bill had good intentions when
it was introduced, but the practical effect of this legislation would
effectively overturn 25 years of law concerning the right of a woman to
choose.
I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a
crime against the pregnant woman.
However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new
category for unborn fetuses.
H.R. 503 would amend the federal crime code to create a new federal
crime for bodily injury or death of an ``unborn child'' who is in
utero. In brief, there is no requirement or intent to cause such death
under federal law. The use of the words as ``unborn child,'' ``death''
and ``bodily injury'' are designed to inflame and establish in federal
precedent of recognizing the fetus as a person, which, if extended
further, would result in a major collision between the rights of the
mother and the rights of a fetus. While the proponents of this bill
claim that the bill would not punish women who choose to terminate
their pregnancies, it is my firm belief that this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's
destruction of a fetus.
This bill will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors
being sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential
for increased civil liability is present.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen
some of our other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the
sale of explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life
than this bill.
We do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses.
A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard people opposed to this bill say time and
time again that this bill takes away the right to choose, and they are
so so wrong. This bill respects the right of those who have chosen to
carry their baby to term, because they want the baby to be born.
The opponents of the bill have massed their arguments saying that we
are providing legal protection for fertilized eggs and zygotes and
blastocysts, but they ignore the fact that this bill provides
protection regardless of at what stage of development the unborn child
is.
They would turn around and say defeat this bill because this dead
child as a result of an act of violence against a woman in my home
State of Wisconsin should not be protected. This is a child that was
about ready to be born before he was murdered. The man who committed
this crime, because it was a mere assault on the mother, is now out of
prison.
We have to pass this bill so that somebody who kills a child like
this one spends a lot of time in prison to pay for his crime.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a bill that I
find troublesome on many levels. H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, at first glance, seems to be a compassionate piece of
legislation that harbors only good intentions towards women. However,
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a significant impact on the Supreme
court's findings in Roe v. Wade.
This measure would conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v.
Wade, and the constitution in general.
An alternative measure that I have reviewed and which I can support
is the Lofgren substitute amendment.
Under the Lofgren proposal, a separate federal criminal offense would
be created for any harm done to a pregnant woman; the pregnant woman
being recognized as the primary victim of a crime causing the
termination of a pregnancy. An offense would be created that protects
women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a
pregnancy; a maximum 20-year sentence would be provided for the injury
to a woman's pregnancy and a maximum life sentence for termination of a
woman's pregnancy; and focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman,
providing a deterrent against violence against women.
This amendment, otherwise known as the Motherhood Protection Act,
provides for the full protection of expectant mothers against violent
crimes without legislating any direct conflict with the highest court
of the land.
If the supporters of H.R. 503 are truly concerned about protecting of
pregnant women, then let us craft a bill that can be supported by all
involved, and actually speaks to women's rights instead of advancing
the pro-life agenda in this backdoor fashion.
When a crime is committed against pregnant women which results in the
termination of the fetus, a tragedy has occurred. Accordingly let us
adopt legislation that recognizes this tragedy without recognizing
something antithetical to the Supreme Court's prior decision.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R.
503, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' This bill continues to
demonstrate the troubling tendency in Congress to undermine women's
constitutional reproductive rights.
Since 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision, we have seen Congress slowly
chip away at women's right to choose in an effort to ultimately nullify
this landmark decision. H.R. 503 is an ill-disguised attack on Roe v.
Wade. That is because at root it is an attempt to redefine when life
begins.
The bill seeks to create a separate Federal criminal offense for
criminal acts that cause death or bodily injury to the ``unborn''
fetus. Tellingly, it does not create any comparable offense for killing
or injuring the woman bearing the fetus. I think that makes it clear
that the real purpose here is not to protect the victims of violence,
but to try to get Congress on
[[Page H1634]]
record as specifying that life begins at conception.
There are serious threats to women, including women bearing children,
that we need to address. Domestic violence is the single greatest cause
of injury to women. Although the statistics vary, according to the
American Medical Association, approximately four million women were
physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners in 1998. That
means that 10,959 women on average are abused every day. This statistic
is deeply disconcerting.
Domestic violence crimes resulting in the loss of pregnancy are
terribly tragic, and these acts should be punished, but H.R. 503 is not
the proper approach to eradicating this problem. We need to concentrate
our efforts on protecting abused women by passing measures, such as the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, to promote
protection from violence as well as increasing assistance to abused
women. That is why I support the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman
from California, Congresswoman Lofgren.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to help these victims of
violence and protect their well being. Domestic violence is a national
concern, and we need to do everything within our capabilities to make
sure that it receives due attention. Let us avoid passing any Federal
law that will undermine a woman's right to choose as protected by the
Constitution of the United States, and let us focus on the real issue
at hand--eradicating violence against women.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
This important legislation would finally make it a separate Federal
offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child in utero in the
course of committing an already defined Federal offense. It is
imperative that we hold criminals responsible for conduct that harms or
kills an unborn child. I cannot understand the opposition to this bill.
It will not affect abortion laws, it merely affirms that a violent act
against a pregnant woman affects not only her but her unborn child as
well. There are most certainly two victims in such crimes, as 24 States
have already recognized.
I am horrified by stories such as that of Tracy Scheide Marciniak who
was only 4 days from delivering her baby boy Zachariah. Four days. For
9 months she had been eagerly awaiting his arrival, planning for his
birth and life, bonding with him in her womb. Unfortunately, her
husband brutally attacked her, targeting a few blows specifically on
her abdomen. Zachariah bled to death in her womb because of the blunt-
force trauma. Tracy nearly died herself but did recover from her
injuries and had to bury her baby boy without ever getting a chance to
see him alive. At the time Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law
so Glendale Black was convicted on a assault to her alone and is now
eligible for parole. The law did not recognize the loss of Zachariah's
life and Glendale Black did not pay for his crime.
Ohio is one of the states where it is a crime to kill an unborn child
in a violent act. Unlike Zachariah, Jasmine Robbins' father was
prosecuted for her manslaughter. Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife
Karlene who was 8 months pregnant with their daughter Jasmine. he
repeatedly struck her in the face and abdomen. Due to the assault,
Karlene' uterus ruptured and Jasmine died. Gregory Robbins pled guilty
to assault and battery to his pregnant wife and involuntary
manslaughter for Jasmine's death.
Jasmine's murder is no less tragic than Zachariah's but at least her
mother did not have to suffer the heartbreak of not having her murder
recognized under our laws.
We live in a society that does not respect life and that troubles me.
We have children killing children in our schools, husbands beating
their wives, and other violent crimes signifying that we as a culture
do not value and treasure life as we should. A good first step towards
recognizing the miracle of life is to ensure that those who take a life
are punished for their crime.
We cannot bring back Zachariah or Jasmine or the other hundreds of
unborn children violently murdered. We can, and must, however, protect
other unborn children from the same fate. We must respect life and make
criminals pay for attacks against all Americans, born and in utero.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While many proponents of this bill
contend that it is necessary to protect pregnant women from assault
which results in the death of her fetus, I believe that this bill could
jeopardize a woman's right to choose. I say this because H.R. 503
attempts to legally recognize the fetus as a ``person'' with rights and
interests separate from and equal to those of the woman. In fact, if
H.R. 503 is enacted into law, it will be the first time a federal law
recognizes a zygote, embryo, or fetus as an independent victim of crime
entitled to full legal rights distinct from the woman.
I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating leniency for a
perpetrator of abuse against a pregnant woman. Instead, I believe that
we need to recognize that the true victim of a violent act is the woman
first and foremost.
Last year, I supported the Motherhood Protection Act which
established a separate offense for abusive conduct against a pregnant
woman resulting in the termination of her pregnancy. This crime would
be punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the
pregnancy is terminated, regardless of if it was intentional, the
assailant could be sentenced to life in prison. I will support this
substitute again today.
It is undeniably a tragedy when a violent act committed against a
woman results in the termination of her pregnancy. Actually, I believe
it is a tragedy when violence against women, whether pregnant or not,
is carried out. However, I believe the best way to enforce the law is
to help the woman, not unnecessarily bring the threat of rescinding the
right to choose into the debate.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R.
503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 and in support of the
Lofgren-Conyers substitute.
While I fully support punishment for violent acts against women at
any and every time, but most especially against pregnant women, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 should be opposed. This bill as
drafted will diminish, rather than enhance the rights of women and do
nothing to protect pregnant women from violence.
Additionally, it is worthy to note, that H.R. 503 is unanimously
opposed by a plethora of groups whose mission is the protection of
women's rights and who oppose domestic violence; including Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, the Women's law Center, the American
Medical Women's Association, National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, National Council of Jewish Women and People for the American
Way.
I support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute because it would protect
pregnant women while upholding a woman's constitutional right to
choose. We must focus on the goals that H.R. 503 calls for, which is to
deter acts of violence against pregnant women that cause injury to
their fetuses or the termination of a pregnancy. We must do so,
however, without opening the door to overturning Roe v. Wade and making
an abortion a federal crime.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the
Record an article about Tracy Scheide Marciniak, a fellow Wisconsinite.
She was brutally beaten 4 days before she was supposed to give birth to
her son, Zachariah. I would like to submit her story for the Record.
Her husband at the time punched her twice in the abdomen and brutally
beat her. Her husband refused to call for help until it was too late.
By the time she reached the hospital, Zachariah had died from blunt
force trauma. Her ex-husband, Glendale Black, was convicted of
assaulting his wife, but not of murdering Zachariah, their unborn
child.
In the aftermath of this violent crime, the Wisconsin Legislature
enacted one of the nation's strongest unborn victim's laws. Regardless,
there is no coinciding federal law. If this incident were to happen
today in a federal jurisdiction, the killer would still only be
prosecuted for assault. This needs to change.
H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, can fix this injustice.
Passage of this bill would make it a federal crime to harm an unborn
child during a violent criminal act. Federal judges could impose the
same punishment as if injury or death occurred to the unborn child's
mother, except for the death penalty.
I disagree with those who believe that Zachariah was not yet a human
being. Had his mother gone into labor a week before her husband abused
her, Zachariah would today be a healthy and happy child. There was no
difference between the Zachariah that was in his mother's womb when she
was beaten with a Zachariah that may have been born a week earlier. He
was still a living person. There should be no exception in the criminal
code for violent acts on babies inside the womb as opposed to those who
are in their mother's arms. The current law makes no logical sense and
should be changed according to this act.
Zachariah is a biblical name. In the Bible, Zachariah and his wife
Elizabeth were faithful followers of God's commandments. They never had
any children and were both too old to do so. As Zachariah entered a
room within the temple he presided over, Gabriel appeared before him
and told him that he and his wife will have a son. God blessed this
couple for being faithful. Their child was blessed, as was Tracy's
child. In scripture, Zachariah means ``God remembers.''
We will not forget Zachariah. Because of him, hopefully violent
offenders will not only be deterred from hurting pregnant mothers, but
from harming their unborn children.
One Victim . . . Or Two?
My name is Tracy Scheide Marciniak.
[[Page H1635]]
On February 8, 1992, I carried within my womb an unborn
baby boy, Zachariah. We were in our ninth month, only four
days from delivery.
That night, the man to whom I was then married, Glendale R.
Black, brutally beat me. He knew that I very much wanted my
son. He punched me very hard twice in the abdomen. Then he
refused to call for help, and prevented me from doing so.
When he relented, I was taken by ambulance to the hospital,
where Zachariah was delivered by emergency Caesarean section.
My son was dead. The physicians said he had bled to death
within my womb because of blunt-force trauma. I nearly died,
but I recovered.
In 1992, Wisconsin, where the crime occurred, did not have
an unborn victims law, and state prosecutors were unable to
convict Glendale Black under a law that required them to
prove that the assault was intended to kill Zachariah. So,
Black was convicted of his assault on me, but not of any
charge that recognized the loss of Zachariah's life. He is
already eligible for parole.
In 1998, in response to my case and others like it, the
Wisconsin Legislature overwhelming enacted one of the
nation's strongest unborn victims laws.
But federal law still fails to recognize unborn victims,
like Zachariah. Even today, if Zachariah had been killed in
the same manner in a federal jurisdiction, his killer could
be prosecuted only for assault.
That is wrong. Congress should approve the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act (H.R. 503, S. 480). Under this bill, if an
unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an
already-defined federal crime of violence, that child will be
recognized as a victim.
Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal,
known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is
offensive to me, because it says that there is only one
victim in such a crime--the woman who is pregnant.
Please hear me on this: On the might of February 8, 1992,
there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived.
Little Zachariah died.
Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren
``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the picture of
me holding my dead son at his funeral.
Then I would say to that representative, ``If you really
think that nobody died that night, then vote for the `one-
victim' amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and
face when you decide.''
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted in opposition to H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation that has
eroded women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private
decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and
her beliefs, not subjected to increasing levels of government
interference.
Rather than being merely a good faith effort to protect pregnant
mothers from violence, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is
actually a back door attempt to interject government into individuals
private lives. Harsh penalties already exist in 38 States for crimes
against pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus.
The overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause
injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving
accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing
state laws. H.R. 503 would do nothing to add to the existing
protections against these serious and prevalent crimes. Nearly one in
every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by
their partner during adulthood. Drunk driving accidents continue to
result in substantial loss of life in every city across the nation.
Instead of focusing on purely political measures aimed at the erosion
of a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be protecting women from
violence and increase assistance to women in life threatening domestic
situations.
I did support the Lofgren Amendment that would have enacted strict
punishments for crimes that result in the injury or death of the fetus
with out the inclusion of constitutionally questionable language. If
protecting pregnant women from violent crime were truly our priority,
Congress would have passed this amendment to H.R. 503.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503,
legislation that does nothing to end violence against pregnant women
but rather is a backdoor attempt to give a fetus the same legal status
as the assaulted woman. Specifically, this measure affords a pregnancy
at ``all stages of development'' legal rights that are equal to, and
separate from, those of the woman. Though abortion is explicitly
excluded from this bill, it clearly establishes new legal rights for
the ``unborn child'' and would be a major step toward dismantling Roe
v. Wade. The penalty would be equal to that imposed for injuring the
woman herself and would apply from the earliest stage of gestation
whether or not the perpetrator knew of the pregnancy.
In recent days, advocates of H.R. 503 have bombarded us with bone-
chilling accounts of pregnant women being subject to heinous assaults.
Clearly, no one in this body believes such acts of senseless violence
should go unpunished. I strongly believe that violent crimes committed
against women and in particular, pregnant women, should be punished to
the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, we, as lawmakers, have a
responsibility to ensure that Federal law properly addresses such
violence. That being said, H.R. 503 does nothing to combat domestic
violence. In fact, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has
come forward in opposition to H.R. 503, arguing that it would only
divert the attention of the legal system away from violence against
women. Unfortunately, this bill is a canard, a red herring, purporting
to do one thing while actually accomplishing another.
Mr. Speaker, rather than immersing this House in the theatrics of
abortion politics, as the underlying bill does, Congress can make a
difference in such heinous cases. The Lofgren substitute, known as the
``Motherhood Protection Act'' would more effectively address the
concern of violence against pregnant women, creating a separate Federal
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. Specifically, under the
Lofgren substitute, assaults of women that compromise a pregnancy would
be subject to a maximum 20-year sentence and, if the assault results in
termination, could mean a life sentence. Thus, under this measure,
assaults that result in injury or death of an ``unborn child'' would be
subject to the same punishment provided under Federal law as for the
violent act against the woman. These penalties would be in addition to
any punishment imposed on the assailant for the underlying offense. The
key difference between the Lofgren alternative and H.R. 503 is that it
does not create a new legal status for the ``unborn child.''
Mr. Speaker, the question at hand is what Federal law can do to
address assaults on pregnant women. I am certain that my colleagues
agree that such attacks should be punished to the fullest extent of the
law. The penalties in the Lofgren substitute are equal to, and in some
instances, actually stronger than, those in the underlying bill.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, let's put our difference on abortion aside
and enact legislation that genuinely addresses harm to pregnant women
and provides a deterrent to violence against women--the Motherhood
Protection Act.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 503,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I commend the Gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Graham on this fine piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is no greater joy than seeing your child for the
first time. Personally, I would not trade that feeling for anything in
the world.
However, there is no greater pain than losing a child. I have seen
the pain in the eyes of potential parents who have suffered the loss of
their unborn children. Mr. Speaker, if you had ever seen the look in
the eyes of those parents, then you would know that you would never
want to feel that pain yourself. Especially, when the unborn child was
lost due to an act of violence. Under current Federal and military
laws, it is not a crime to end the life of an unborn child, regardless
of the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, today this body will rise up and take a stand against
this atrocity. Today, we will make this act of violence a felony and
illegal under all Federal laws.
I urge all of my colleagues to protect the lives of the unborn, and
protect pregnant women by voting for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, in the Minnesota State Legislature, I
worked to secure health care for families, to fight against domestic
violence, and to protect a woman's right to reproductive health
choices. In the Minnesota State Legislature, we addressed the issue of
violence against women in all stages of life--working with women, their
families and doctors.
I am particularly concerned about the legislation that we are
considering today. It appears the intention of this legislation is to
reverse the Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade.
Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to redefine when life begins. I
support the landmark decision of Roe versus Wade in 1973 that
establishes a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy while
also allowing individual States to determine the legality of such
decisions as a pregnancy proceeds.
H.R. 503 fails to recognize that injury to a pregnancy is first and
foremost an injury to a woman. This bill ignores the pregnant woman
entirely, and would do nothing to stem violence against women. Crimes
of this nature are more appropriately addressed by enhancing penalties
for termination of, or injury to, a pregnancy.
H.R. 503 is said to be protection for pregnant women against a
violent crime. But the words ``mother,'' ``women,'' or ``pregnant
women'' are not even mentioned in the language of the bill.
[[Page H1636]]
I would proudly support a bill to prevent and punish the violent
crimes against women and especially pregnant women. This bill does not
address where and when these crimes most often occur or how to stop
them.
This bill does not help the 37 percent of women who need to receive
emergency help because of assault by their husband or boyfriend? Where
is the legislation in maintaining a restraining order when a woman
flees to another State because her life is in danger?
If we want to protect women and their children from violence, let us
debate funding for domestic violence shelters and hotlines that are
overrun by women in danger to broadly address where violence occurs.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute, which
recognizes that when a violent crime is perpetrated against a pregnant
woman and causes injury to or termination of her pregnancy, there is
additional harm to that woman.
Crimes committed against pregnant women are heinous and should be
punished to the fullest extent. The Lofgren substitute actually
provides harsher penalties on perpetrators of violent crimes against
pregnant women than does H.R. 503.
I strongly urge my colleagues not to jeopardize the decisions women
can make about their own bodies and to vote no on H.R. 503 and yes on
the Lofgren substitute.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided bill.
Let me make something perfectly clear from the outset: The loss or
harm to a woman and her fetus is absolutely devastating to the woman
and her family. Those who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus
should be severely punished, and families should have the legal tools
to have their loss recognized. We will offer a substitute that does
that, and I believe that the Lofgren substitute demonstrates very
clearly that there is a lot of common ground on this issue if we would
only look for that instead of looking for ways to disagree.
Having said that, let me explain why the approach this bill takes is
just another thinly veiled attack on a woman's right to choose.
This bill would give a fetus the same legal recognition as you or I--
for the first time in Federal law. Instead of addressing the real
issues at hand--the horrible pain for a woman who loses a pregnancy to
a cowardly, violent act--this bill is an ideological marker for the
anti-choice special interests.
Frankly, this bill is just another way of writing a Human Life
Amendment. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee admits that it
participated in the drafting of the bill, and according to the NRTL
website, ``[t]he bill challenges that [pro-choice] ideology by
recognizing the unborn child as a human victim, distinct from the
mother.''
If anti-choice members of this House want to recognize the fetus as a
person--do that. Bring a Human Life Amendment to the floor and let us
vote on it. But don't tell pregnant women in this country that you're
trying to protect them with this bill when there are existing State and
Federal laws to do that and when we are willing to join you in
addressing the tragic cases when pregnant women are attacked. The
American people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. They
know that you're proposing a political statement today, not a real
solution.
If you really want to crack down on cowardly criminals who would
attack a pregnant woman, support the Lofgren substitute. It gets us to
the same ends, without the overtly political means. And if you're
serious about protecting women in this country from violence, let's
fully fund the Violence Against Women Act today.
VAWA is the most effective way for us to help combat violence against
women. Every year, over two million American women are physically
abused by their husbands or boyfriends. A woman is physically abused
every 15 seconds in this country. And one of every three abused
children becomes an adult abuser or victim. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act will do nothing for these women. But VAWA makes all the
difference in the world.
My colleagues, please do not be fooled. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act is not about protecting pregnant women from violent acts.
Rather, it is yet another anti-choice attempt to undermine a woman's
right to choose.
I have stood on the House floor many times and asked my colleagues to
work with me to find ways to help women improve their health, plan
their pregnancies, and have healthier children. It is tragic that every
day over 400 babies are born to mothers who received little or no
prenatal care, every minute a baby is born to a teen mother, and three
babies die every hour. And it is tragic that 1 of every 3 women will
experience domestic violence in her adulthood.
Instead of finding new ways to revisit the divisive abortion battle,
Americans want us to focus our efforts on providing women with access
to prenatal care, affordable contraception, health education and
violence prevention. If we truly want to protect women and their
pregnancies from harm, then let us work together to enact legislation
to help women have healthy babies and protect them from violent
abusers.
Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 503.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each
branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will
likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but
earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend
title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting
unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the
class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing)
Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves
yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing
every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than
to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure
by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of
Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against
the unborn?
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a
government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates
the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or
enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks
any authority or consent of the governed and only the State
governments, their designees, or the people in their private market
actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is
brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's
history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended
to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of
historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could
reasonably portray it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to
whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further entrenches
and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court's
intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect
by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against). By
specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the
mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress
appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a
Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary
Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the
assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill
does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the
unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require
intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor.
Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist
with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution
while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is
subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only
the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet
another diminution of the unborn's personhood status and clearly a
violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more
difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as
government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some
instances and as a non-person in others.
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to
federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts
. . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.''
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political
pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill
or sensational crime.''
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional
protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to
allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or
transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime).
``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the
past and federalization of murder today, erode the
[[Page H1637]]
right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to
the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In
other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense.
However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a
ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State
government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double
jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal
criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that
one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite
the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national
police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less
effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those
who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the
integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as
full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those
who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal
Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which
allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal
Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from
one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
States in working with one another rather than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to
centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes,
governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this
country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the
dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow
someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary
exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of
scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we
further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered
by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal
laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing''
jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay
taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to
provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona.
If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government
intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes
more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with
one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments.
Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen
mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend
to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility
less and less practical.
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence
is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left
to the States' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal,
constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to
federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the
unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal
Government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v.
Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further
federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and,
in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby
and the bathwater.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 503,
and I thank Representative Graham for introducing this legislation
again in the 107th Congress. I am a cosponsor of this bill that makes
killing a women's unborn child punishable as a Federal crime. The bill
simply states that an individual who commits a Federal crime of
violence against a pregnant woman and thereby causes death or injury to
her unborn child will be held accountable for the harm caused to both
victims, mother and child. Twenty-four States have already enacted laws
which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes--
this bill simply gives the same protection in Federal jurisdictions.
Opponents of the bill have said that it is a back door to eliminating
a women's right to choose, but this bill is about choice, Mr. Speaker,
it is about respecting--and protecting--a women's choice to bring a new
life into this world. H.R. 503 will allow under Federal law for the
prosecutions of those who callously disregard that choice.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 503, The
Unborn victims of Violence Act and want to thank my colleague from
South Carolina for introducing it.
As you know, H.R. 503 would make it a separate Federal crime to hurt
or kill an unborn child during the commission of a Federal crime
against a pregnant woman. 24 States currently recognize both the mother
and the unborn child as victims of violent crimes. And in 1999, this
chamber passed this legislation by a vote of 254 to 172. However, it
was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.
I also strongly oppose the Substitute Amendment being offered by
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment fails to recognize the unborn
child as a victim of a crime, even in circumstances when the
perpetrator acts with specific intent to kill the unborn child. Under
her amendment, a criminal could receive a stiffer sentence for
interfering with ``the normal course of the pregnancy'' while
committing a Federal crime. The premise of this approach is that there
has only been one victim, the mother, who has suffered a compound
injury. However, if an expectant mother is shot and her baby is born
disabled because of the bullet, would anyone say that only the mother
and not the child had been injured. However, if the baby dies before
being born, the supporters of the substitute amendment say only one
person has suffered. This is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a letter from
the National Right to Life Committee in support of H.R. 503 and why the
Lofgren Substitute should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to consider
the points it raises.
National Right to Life
Committee, Inc.
Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.
RE: In opposition to ``one-victim'' substitute amendment to
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503)
Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives
prepares to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R.
503), the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you
to reject the assertion of those who say that when a criminal
assaults a woman and kills her unborn child, nobody has
really died.
That is the callous ideological doctrine embodied in the
substitute amendment that we anticipate will be offered to
H.R. 503 on the House floor (it was offered by Congresswomen
Lofgren in the Judiciary Committee, where it was rejected).
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates no new federal
crimes. Rather, the bill would come into play only when
federal authorities have cause to arrest someone for an
offense against a woman in one of 68 already-defined federal
crimes of violence, by also allowing them to bring a second
charge if there has been a second victim, an unborn child. A
document circulated by the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America asserts that ``nowhere in the bill is harm against
women mentioned,'' but that is a blatantly misleading
statement. The bill really mentions harm against women 68
times, as it cites the 68 federal crimes of violence against
women in which H.R. 503 would apply.
Under the Lofgren Substitute, a criminal could receive a
stiffer sentence for interfering with ``the normal course of
the pregnancy'' while committing a federal crime, but under
the premise that there has only been one victim, the mother,
who has suffered a compound injury. This approach is
incoherent. In those cases in which the woman dies in the
assault, is it not a duplicative charge to prosecute the
assailant both for killing the woman and for doing her an
additional injury? In other cases, in which the mother
survives but the baby dies, the Lofgren Substitute would
impose a penalty of life in prison--which seems a harsh
penalty, unless somebody has died.
Consider the words of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin, who was
assaulted in the ninth month of her pregnancy. She was
injured and her unborn son, Zachariah, was killed. Because
Wisconsin at that time lacked an unborn victims law, the
assailant was convicted only for the injury he did to Mrs.
Marciniak, and he is already eligible for parole. Mrs.
Marciniak explains, ``This one-victim proposal is offensive
to me. Its premise is this: On the night my husband beat me,
nobody died. But that is not true. That night, there were two
victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. Little
Zachariah died.'' Mrs. Marciniak urges House members to
look at the photo of her holding Zachariah in her arms at
his funeral, and asks, ``Can anybody honestly tell me
there is only one victim in that picture?'' (The photo is
posted at www.nrlc.org, and appears in NRLC ads that are
running various publications this week.)
H.R. 503 explicitly states that nothing in the bill ``shall
be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the
pregnant woman . . . has been obtained.''
[[Page H1638]]
Nor does the bill pertain to any action by a woman that
results in harm to her own unborn child. Moreover, the laws
of 24 states already recognize the ``unborn child'' as a
victim of violent crimes for all or some of the baby's period
of pre-natal development. These laws are listed at
www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm.
Numerous state and federal courts have ruled that these
state unborn victims laws do not contradict Roe v. Wade or
otherwise affect legal abortion. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1989 found no problem with a Missouri law that
establishes the ``unborn child'' as a legal member of the
human family for purposes far broader than those covered by
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Indeed, the April 21
issue of National Journal (page 1173) quotes Heather
Boonstra, senior public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, as ``acknowledging that [Rep.] Graham's bill would
probably survive a court challenge.'' For further discussion
of the constitutional issues, see the Judiciary Committee
report at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/hr042.txt.
Some opponents of H.R. 503 have objected to the bill's
recognition of the ``child in utero'' as a member of the
human family. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House by a vote of
417-0 passed a bill that contained the same definition of
``child in utero'' and that embodied the same basic legal
principle. The roll call on that bill, and the text of the
bill, are appended.
In NRLC's scorecard of significant congressional votes for
2001, a vote in favor of a one-victim substitute amendment to
H.R. 503 will be accurately described as a vote to declare
that when a criminal injures a mother and kills her unborn
child, there has been no loss of a human life. Thank your for
your consideration of NRLC's views on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Douglas Johnson,
Legislative Director.
Patricia Coll,
Legislative Assistant.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to
H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
H.R. 503 claims to protect unborn children from assault and murder by
giving the fetus--at any stage of development from the time of
fertilization--the status of a person under the law so that crimes
resulting in the death of a ``child in utero'' can be charged
separately. The bill does not address the violence against the mother
that resulted in the harm to the fetus.
The purpose of H.R. 503 is not to protect pregnant women from
violence, it simply seeks to confer the same legal status to an embryo
or fetus as to the woman who is pregnant. In fact, this act would give
even a fertilized egg this status. H.R. 503 seeks to establish in law
the principle of ``fetal rights'' that are equal to but distinct from
the rights of pregnant women. The bill seeks to undercut Roe v. Wade,
in which the Supreme Court held that at no stage of development are
fetuses persons under the law.
I wish that the Members of this body who so fervently want to
overturn the right of women to a legal abortion would present an honest
and straightforward bill to confer full personhood on an embryo or
fetus. Let's take a vote on that.
But we should not pretend that this bill is about protecting women
from violence. If you want to protect pregnant women from violence,
then it is important to address the problem of domestic violence by
fully funding the Violence Against Women Act. The vast majority of
attacks against pregnant women are domestic violence. In fact, this
bill will only divert the attention of the legal system away from
domestic violence or violence against women. The National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, which represents organizations and shelters
in all 50 states, opposes this legislation.
H.R. 503 ignores the fact that when harm comes to a pregnancy, it
happens to the woman who is pregnant. The bill fails to address the
need for strong federal legislation to prevent and punish violent
crimes against women.
If you want to provide for an enhanced penalty for attacks against
women that result in harm to her pregnancy, then vote for the Lofgren
amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 would undermine Roe v. Wade by
recognizing for the first time in federal law a zygote, blastocyst,
embryo, or fetus as a ``person,'' with rights equal to those of a
woman. As a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, I am
concerned that the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' does not ensure
that programs aimed at taking action against domestic violence are
fully funded.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that violence against a
pregnant woman, where harm is brought to not only the mother but also
the fetus, is a most heinous offense. These acts of violence are tragic
and should be recognized by increased federal penalties for those
convicted of violence to a pregnant woman.
To accomplish this goal, I will be supporting The Motherhood
Protection Act, which creates a new, separate federal criminal offense
for harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill provides for a maximum
twenty year sentence for injury to a woman's pregnancy. Further, it
provides a maximum life sentence for termination of a woman's
pregnancy.
The underlying Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) and The
Motherhood Protection Act achieve the exact same goal and provide
identical penalties. The only difference is that H.R. 503 includes a
legal definition of when life begins. However, medical experts and
knowledgeable scientists are still debating this issue, and I don't
believe Congress is in a position to make that determination today.
Sadly, this serious issue has been turned into an abortion debate,
which it is not. The goal of the sponsors of this legislation is to
protect pregnant women and the unborn, and The Motherhood Protection
Act, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, accomplishes this
purpose. The Motherhood Protection Act has my full support.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague on
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Graham, for bringing this very important
legislation before the House. I commend you for your extraordinary
efforts on behalf of the unborn victims of violence.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
which promotes justice by holding violent criminals accountable for
their conduct. It is unthinkable that under current federal law, an
individual who commits a federal crime of violence against a pregnant
woman receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the
woman's unborn child during the commission of the crime. Where is the
justice when a criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the
express purpose of harming her unborn child, and not be held
accountable for those actions?
Approximately half of the states, including my home state of
Virginia, have seen the wisdom in holding criminals accountable for
their actions by making violent criminals liable for conduct that harms
or kills an unborn baby. Unfortunately, our federal statutes provide a
gap in the law that usually allows the criminal to walk away with
little more than a slap on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable
for damage done to property than for intentional harm done to an unborn
child. This discrepancy in the law is appalling.
Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who
are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending
birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the
devastation created by the loss of a child or replace a child lost to
violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making the
criminals who take the life of an unborn child pay for their actions.
When a mother chooses to bring a life into this world and that life
is cut short by a violent criminal, that criminal should be held
accountable under the law. Justice demands it, and so should we. I urge
each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
I oppose this legislation because of its implications for the future
of a woman's right to lawfully terminate a pregnancy, not because I
oppose punishing crimes against pregnant women--or anyone else--to the
full extent of the law.
Don't be fooled, this bill is an attack on the fundamental principles
of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 503 would establish a zygote, blastocyst, embryo,
and fetus as a person under federal law. Although the Supreme Court has
held that fetuses are not persons under the 14th amendment, this bill
would bestow separate rights to the fetus equal to that of the mother.
The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates a separate
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman, while maintaining the
woman as the primary victim of the crime. It also creates an offense
for violence resulting in the injury or termination of a pregnancy.
I urge my fellow colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and to support the
Lofgren substitute. H.R. 503 dislodges the cornerstone underpinning Roe
v. Wade. In contrast, the Lofgren substitute strengthens punishments
for crimes against pregnant women without weakening a woman's right to
choose.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Democratic Chair of the
Pro-Life Caucus, to express my strong support for the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act and to dispel some of the myths we've heard about it from
those who are opposed to this commonsense, anticrime legislation.
In recent years, 28 States have passed laws similar to the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, allowing criminals who assault pregnant
mothers to be prosecuted for injuring or murdering the unborn child
during the attack. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, the
criminal faces no such consequences.
We have all heard the tragic stories told here today, stories of
brutal assaults on pregnant mothers which resulted in the deaths of
[[Page H1639]]
their unborn children. These violent acts went unprosecuted and
unpunished. For the sake of these women and their unborn children,
Congress must correct this oversight in Federal law and pass the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act. It is pro-woman, pro-child, and anti-criminal.
This bill and its goal seem pretty straightforward. How could anyone
oppose it? After all, every Member of this body wants to protect women
and children, and punish criminals. Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that
we have a simple misunderstanding about what this bill actually does
and I want to take a moment to set the record straight.
Some of my colleagues are concerned that The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act prevents women from obtaining a legal abortion. This
assertion is simply not true. The Unborn Victims legislation
specifically prohibits the prosecution of women who terminate their
pregnancies through abortion. While I am pro-Life and therefore very
much opposed to abortion, I want to make it clear that this legislation
has absolutely no impact on a woman's legal ability to terminate her
pregnancy. This is not an abortion bill. It is a crime bill.
Others in this body are concerned that the act undermines the Roe v.
Wade decision by recognizing unborn children as having rights outside
of the mother. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has zero
impact on Roe v. Wade, because the Supreme Court has stated that unborn
children already have legal rights outside the mother, specifically in
tort and inheritance cases, and these rights do not preclude a woman
from obtaining an abortion. This is not a bill which restricts
abortion. It is a bill that punishes criminals who commit brutal acts
of violence against women and their children.
Finally, we have heard from some who honestly believe that this act
is somehow antiwoman. Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
not only reinforces existing laws which protect women against violence,
but also ensures that the horrible emotional and physical anguish a
pregnant woman would suffer from the death of her unborn child would
not go unpunished due to a loophole in the law. It is hard for me to
find any legislation which is more pro-woman than this.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
important pro-woman, pro-child and anticriminal legislation, and vote
in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record, and
commend to my colleagues, the following document from the National
Right to Life Committee. It provides important details on H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Key Points on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been introduced in
companion bills as H.R. 503, sponsored by Congressman Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), and S. 480, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine
(R-Ohio). The full text is available at the NRLC website at
www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would establish that if
an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of
an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the
assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of
the second victim, the unborn child. The bill would recognize
that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or
kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The
bill would apply this two-victim principle to about 70
existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These
laws affect federal geographical jurisdictions, the military
justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific
acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain
terrorist bombings).
In current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not
recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. Thus,
for example, if a criminal beats a woman on a military base,
and kills her unborn child, he can be charged only with the
battery against the woman, because the unborn child's loss of
life is not recognized by the law. This gap in federal law
results in grave injustices, some real-world examples of
which were described by former Congressman Charles Canady (R-
Fl.) at a July 21, 1999 House Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee hearing on the issue. Congressman Canady's
statement is posted at http://nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL899/
cana.html.
Twenty-four (24) states have already enacted laws which
recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes.
Eleven (11) of these states provide this protection
throughout the period of in utero development, while the
other 13 provide protection during specific stages of
development. For detailed information on state unborn victims
laws, see ``State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn
Victims,'' available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/
sthomicidelaws.htm. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act
would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would
it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one.
Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured
or killed during the course of already-defined federal
crimes of violence.
The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any
abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the
mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical
treatment. Nevertheless, NRLC supports the bill because it
achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their
own right: the protection of unborn children from acts of
violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn
children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and
the punishment of those who harm unborn children while
engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.
It is well established that this type of legislation does
not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decrees
(Roe v. Wade, etc.). Criminal defendants have brought many
legal challenges to the state unborn victim laws mentioned
above, based on Roe and other constitutional arguments, but
all such challenges have been rejected by the courts. (A list
of pertinent court decisions is available on request.)
Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive
Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate
a Missouri statute that declares that ``the life of each
human being beings at conception,'' that ``unborn children
have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,''
and that all state laws ``shall be interpreted and construed
to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage
of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities
available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this
state,'' to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S.
Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's
law ``impermissibl[y]'' adopted ``a theory of when life
begins,'' but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and
held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn
children, so long as the state does not include restrictions
on abortion that Roe forbids. The Minnesota Supreme Court
took the same view in upholding the Minnesota law: ``Roe v.
Wade . . . does not protect, much less confer on an
assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the
fetus.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)].
Some opponents have objected to the bill's recognition of
the ``child in utero'' as a member of the human family who
can be harmed in a crime. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House
passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same
definition of ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same
basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child
Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority
may ``carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she
carries a child in utero. . . . `child in utero' means a
member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of
development, who is carried in the womb.'' The principle
embodied in the Innocent Child Protection Act was obvious.
Whatever one's position regarding the morality of capital
punishment as such, there is only one rational reason for
delaying a lawfully ordered execution of a woman because
she is pregnant--that is, carrying out the execution would
take two human lives, not just one. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act would extend that same principle to the rest
of the federal criminal code, recognizing that when a
criminal attacks a woman, injuring or killing her and
injuring or killing her unborn child, he has claimed two
victims.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has come under vehement
attack from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, Planned
Parenthood, and the ACLU. Even though the bill deals with
acts of violence other than abortion, the pro-abortion
lobby's ideology apparently compels it to deny the very
existence of unborn human beings in any area of the law.
Thus, during the 106th Congress, pro-abortion lawmakers
proposed alternative legislation, the ``Motherhood Protection
Act'' or Lofgren substitute amendment, which the House of
Representatives rejected on September 30, 1999. This ``one-
victim'' proposal did not mention the unborn child (by
whatever name), but instead defined as an offense
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.'' This
approach would have codified a falsehood--the notion that
there is only one victim in these crimes. In the real world,
however, when an unborn child loses her life in a criminal
attack, the parents and society mourn the death of a separate
individual, rather than viewing it simply as an additional
injury to the mother.
Moreover, arguments in favor of the one-victim proposal are
internally inconsistent and illogical. Supporters of the one-
victim approach insist that when a criminal injures a mother
and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound
injury to the mother but no loss of any human life--yet, the
Lofgren Amendment would have imposed a penalty (up to life in
prison) commensurate with loss of human life. Also, advocates
of the one-victim approach argue that when a criminal
assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should
receive double punishment: once for killing the mother and
then again for depriving her of her ``pregnancy''--but if
there is only one victim, it is difficult to see why this
would not be a duplicative criminal charge, since legally
speaking a woman who has been murdered cannot herself suffer
an additional ``loss.''
Some opponents of the bill have charged that the bill would
punish harm to the unborn child ``utterly ignoring the harm
to the pregnant woman.'' Others have charged that the bill
would ``separate the mother from her fetus.'' These
objections reflect misunderstandings or misrepresentations of
how the bill is structured. In reality, the bill would
[[Page H1640]]
allow the government to win a conviction for harm to an
unborn child only if it first proves that the defendant
violated one of the 70 or so enumerated federal laws with
respect to the mother.
Some opponents of the bill have charged that it would allow
defendants to be convicted without a showing of intent to do
harm. This is false. Under the bill, it is necessary to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had intent to do
criminal harm, at least towards the mother. If such criminal
intent towards the mother is proved, then the defendant also
will be held responsible for the harm done to the unborn
baby, under the doctrine of ``transferred intent.'' As the
House Judiciary Committee report (106th Congress) explained,
transferred intent is a well-established principle in the
law. (If a man shoots at a woman with intent to kill, and the
bullet misses her, passes through a wall, and kills a child
who the shooter did not know was there, he can be convicted
of the murder of the child.) As the Minnesota Supreme Court
ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, ``The
possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age
may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not
safely exclude.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W. 2d 318 (Minn.
1990)].
In order to win a conviction under the bill, it would be
necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that a human being (1) already existed, and (2) was
``carried in the womb,'' which would be utterly impossible
until after the embryo had implanted in the womb and sent out
the chemical signals that announced his or her presence
(i.e., after implantation). Moreover, even after the
prosecution has met that burden, it must also prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a defendant's criminal conduct caused
the death of the child in utero. The mere possibility or even
the strong likelihood that a defendant's criminal conduct
caused a baby's death would not suffice--the bill requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
National Right to Life legislative staff are available to
discuss this issue with journalists and congressional
offices. Please call (202) 626-8820, or e-mail to:
L[email protected]. Extensive additional information on the
federal bill and on state unborn victims laws is available at
the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.
Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Ms. Lofgren
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will designate
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Lofgren:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING HER PREGNANCY.
(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if
the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years
or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be such punishment
(other than the death penalty) as the court martial may
direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
934(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118,
119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This debate this morning has been interesting, but I think it is
clear, and we need to be honest about it, that the debate and the
underlying bill is about choice and it is about Roe v. Wade. That is
why the National Right to Life Committee has vigorously lobbied for
H.R. 503 and why the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has
lobbied actively against 503.
What we are doing here today is offering a substitute that we hope
can bring both sides of the choice to come together in unity to protect
pregnant women from violent assault when that assault injures or
terminates their pregnancy.
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade as the
underlying bill does. I have heard a lot of the arguments made here
this morning, but I think it is worth pointing out that redefining
personhood legislatively for the purposes of the 14th amendment in this
criminal statute may have the impact of allowing, even though certain
activities are carved out of the bill, for prosecutorial purposes, it
does not deal with civil actions.
Clearly the bill could outline the ability for guardians to be
appointed for fetuses or even zygotes, and that civil action and
injunctions could be based upon this bill. The Lofgren-Conyers
substitute does not do that. We do not needlessly inject the abortion
debate into the matter of criminal justice. This bill focuses on the
harm to the pregnant woman and provides, we hope, a deterrence of
violence against women and provides very tough penalties when that
violence results in injury to the fetus or a miscarriage.
This bill is tougher, this substitute is tougher than the underlying
bill; and I will give my colleagues just an example of how that would
work. Each of the measures, both the underlying bill and the
substitute, recites various Federal criminal laws as jurisdictional
offenses. One of the sections, one of the predicate offenses is section
248 of Title 18, which provides for a scheme to deter violence against
women and others who are entering clinics, health clinics.
Now, in my part of California, Planned Parenthood provides extensive
health care services. They provide prenatal care, pediatric care, and
the like. If a pregnant woman is trying to enter the Planned Parenthood
clinic through the protesters in San Jose to get her prenatal care and
is assaulted by one of the protesters and miscarries, under the H.R.
503, there would need to be proven an intent to cause that miscarriage
or in the language of the bill kill the unborn child.
Under the Lofgren substitute, no such requirement is in place. If a
miscarriage occurred, the full sentence of up to a life sentence could
be imposed. In the case of the underlying bill, the maximum sentence
that could be imposed without proving intent, which is very difficult
to do, would be 1 year or, if bodily injury was not afflicted on the
woman, it would be 10 years.
So we have a difference really with the substitute providing up to a
life sentence and the underlying bill merely 1 or 10 years. I think
that those of us who want to give a strong message to those who would
assault women would prefer the life sentence.
This is stronger as well because it is constitutional unlike the
underlying bill. I recently reread Roe v. Wade, something that I think
all of us should do from time to time. Some of us had not read it since
law school. It was good to be reminded in the language of the Justices,
their consideration, first of the personhood of the fetus, but also the
discussion of what can be regulated and when.
Clearly, and we all know this as people, the horrible situation of
the woman who was assaulted, and she was 4 days away from delivery, and
I do not want to get into the personhood argument, but she could have
induced labor. She lost her child in my view, and that was a tragedy.
Our bill would protect that. But it also protects something else. If
one is 6 weeks pregnant, the substitute that we are offering provides
the same level of protection as the poor woman who was assaulted in the
picture that has been used several times today.
[[Page H1641]]
{time} 1300
Why is that? Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage
understand this very essential truth. If a woman miscarries, whether it
be from assault or from some other reason, that woman has lost one of
life's great, great opportunities. A miscarriage is something that a
woman never forgets, and it is a major life blow. Whether the woman is
6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, that loss is acutely felt by
women who want to have a child, and it deserves the full penalty that
the law can provide and up to a life sentence.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come together on this substitute.
Last Congress there were a number of Members of this House who are
anti-choice who voted for the substitute, understanding that the
penalties are indeed more severe and it would provide complete
protection. I urge those individuals to do so again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CHABOT. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the former chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the current chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. Hyde asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Quincy Adams, in a famous summation to
the Supreme Court in 1841, spoke on behalf of 35 Africans he
represented in the historic Amistad case involving that slave ship.
Adams told the Supreme Court they would not have a more important case
before them because this concerns the very nature of man.
Mr. Speaker, today we confront the same issue only today it is the
unborn whose humanity is being threatened, not the slaves. The question
we are faced with is whether a preborn child has value; value
sufficient to warrant protection in the law from a criminal assault, or
whether the tiny, unborn infant is beneath protection, without value,
without standing, without significance. Whether this little unborn is
merely a randomly multiplying bunch of cells, a sort of tumor, like
Shakespeare's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
A famous novelist, Saul Bellow, once wrote, ``A great deal of energy
can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' To
rationalize the divesting of the little battered body of the unborn
child, divest it of its humanity, its membership in the human family,
is the ultimate indignity. My colleagues will not even call him a
victim.
In the endless debate on abortion, the term ``extremist'' is hurled
across the aisle. I cannot imagine a more extreme posture than to deny
the humanity of the unborn. If you hold the view that the unborn child
is without value, you have to explain why this House on July 25, 2000
voted 417 to zero to forbid the execution of a woman while she carries
a child in utero. That pregnancy must have meant something. So the fact
of a pregnancy makes a difference.
An obstetrician treats two patients when he treats a pregnant woman.
Specialists perform fetal surgery of incredible complexity, heart
surgery, spina bifida, exchange transfusions, all sorts of surgery to
save that baby. How many times has a young couple exhibited proudly
pictures of the sonogram? Tell these prospective parents their unborn
child is without value.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute dehumanizes the child in the
womb. It echoes a line from a New York Times editorial yesterday, which
cannot bring itself to describe the assault that kills a mother's child
in the womb as anything more than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' Have
you ever heard a colder phrase describing the death from violence in
the womb than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' That is like saying a drug
dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist or a bank robber is a holder not in
due course.
Listen to the words of a famous obstetrician, Dr. Joseph DeLee, who
wrote in the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1940 as the world
was about to be plunged into a bloody war, ``At the present time when
rivers of blood and tears of innocent men, women and children are
flowing in most parts of the world, it seems almost silly to be
contending over the right to live of an unknowable atom of human flesh
in the uterus of a woman. No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is
of transcendent importance that there be in this chaotic world one high
spot, however small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and
savagery that is sweeping over us. That we, the medical profession,
hold to the principle of the sacredness of human life and of the rights
of the individual, even though unborn, is proof that humanity is not
yet lost.''
The need for illusion is too great to justify weeding out of the
human race the unborn. A pregnancy has not been compromised. A baby has
been killed. In the words of Willy Loman's wife, Linda, in ``Death of a
Salesman,'' ``Attention must be paid.'' Support Graham, defeat Lofgren.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the House Chamber,
I am here with my daughter-for-the-day, Laura Wasserman, who is sitting
next to me, who is taking the place today for my four wanted children.
Mr. Speaker, I have borne children. I have also suffered a
miscarriage; and I would like to say to the gentleman (Mr. Hyde) who
just spoke before me who talked in terms of the Lofgren amendment
dehumanizing the child, that the underlying bill dehumanizes the woman
bearing the child, and I think that point needs to be noticed. We are
talking about unborn children, and I take that very seriously. We are
also talking about pregnant women who are bearing those fetuses that
are about to become children. Mr. Speaker, I think attention must be
paid to the mothers.
I rise in support of the amendment offered today by my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), which creates
a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and
specifically punishes violence against her resulting in injury to or
the termination of a pregnancy.
If we are trying to protect pregnant women, let us protect them. Let
us not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking
their rights under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses.
Mr. Speaker, I have read Roe v. Wade. It was a decision of the
Supreme Court after I was a practicing lawyer. I knew Harry Blackmun,
the late Justice Blackmun, who drafted Roe v. Wade and whose experience
in this area came from his being general counsel to the Mayo Clinic. He
carefully defined a framework in that decision that includes a
definition of viability of the fetus. The underlying bill here would
interfere with that definition and undercut Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition
to the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Once again, opponents of choice are
making an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to choose.
Supporters of H.R. 503 claim it increases punishments for individuals
who commit violence against pregnant women. They claim it will help
protect these women--however, the protection of the pregnant woman is
never mentioned in the text of this bill.
Instead, the bill defines an unborn fetus as a person against whom a
crime can be committed. It creates ``fetal rights.'' Congress should
not be involved in defining when life begins nor should it create
``rights'' for which we do not know the full repercussions.
I strongly support the alternative offered by my friend and colleague
Zoe Lofgren, which creates a separate federal criminal offense for harm
to a pregnant woman and specifically punishes violence against her
resulting in injury or the termination of a pregnancy. If we are trying
to protect pregnant women, then let's protect them. Let's not insult
the intelligence of women in this country by attacking their rights
under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses.
Roe v. Wade establishes a careful framework which includes a
definition of viability of the fetus. H.R. 503 is a backdoor attempt to
[[Page H1642]]
weaken Roe v. Wade and interfere with a woman's right to make her own
reproductive choices.
Mr. Speaker, let's respect the women of this country. Let's not
undermine a woman's Constitutional right to choose. Vote no on H.R.
503!
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that
making reference to persons on the floor who are not Members of the
House is not appropriate.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute amendment would provide an
enhanced sentence for a violent crime that causes an interruption to
the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury,
including termination of the pregnancy. This substitute clearly must be
opposed.
First, the substitute ignores the injuries inflicted by violent
criminals upon the unborn. It appears to operate as a sentencing
enhancement. A sentencing enhancement is when you get attacked and the
attacker throws you down and hurts your arm, your leg and your back,
too. The attacker's penalties gets enhanced by the additional penalties
done to the victim. But I challenge anyone to sit back and reflect on
the loss they would feel if they were a pregnant woman who lost her
unborn child or a relative of that woman. Would the loss felt be the
same as the loss of an appendix or pancreas? I think not. Would you
feel the same regret you felt for a bone if a bone were broken or a
slipped disk in one's back? Surely not.
The loss that a person would feel would be a distinct and a unique
loss, and the criminal law should appropriately reflect that loss in a
separate offense protecting the unborn children. It is our goal to
protect them and the mothers in this instance. The law does not simply
punish criminals. The law, and especially criminal law, embodies the
judgment of civilized society. As such it must credibly and fully
respect and reflect the magnitude of the loss felt when a woman loses
her unborn child to violence. This can only be done by creating a
separate offense to protect the separate unborn person.
Second, the substitute is hopelessly ambiguous. So ambiguous that it
puts in jeopardy the prosecution of any criminal for violence against
the unborn. The confusing verbiage in the substitute amendment is
incomprehensible; and if adopted, it will almost certainly doom any
prosecution for injuring or killing an unborn child during the
commission of a violent crime.
The substitute amendment provides an enhanced penalty for
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in
prenatal injury, including termination and pregnancy.'' The amendment
then authorizes greater punishment for an ``interruption'' that
terminates the pregnancy than it does for a mere interruption of a
pregnancy.
What is the difference between an interruption of a pregnancy and an
interruption that terminates the pregnancy? Does not any interruption
of a pregnancy necessarily result in a termination of the pregnancy; or
have supporters of the substitute managed to find a way to place a
developing human being in some sort of suspended animation.
Mr. Speaker, what does the phrase ``termination of pregnancy'' mean.
Does it mean only that the unborn child died, or could it mean that the
child was just born prematurely without suffering any injuries.
These ambiguities make the substitute almost impossible to make any
sense of. But maybe this is not what the substitute does. It is so
ambiguous that it admits of several readings. It is more like a bowl of
tea leaves.
Subsection 2(a) of the substitute amendment appears to operate as a
mere sentence enhancement authorizing punishment in addition to any
penalty imposed for the predicate offense. Yet the language of
subsection 2(b) describes the additional punishment provided in
subsection 2(a) as punishment for a violation of subsection (a),
suggesting that subsection 2(a) creates a separate offense for killing
or injuring an unborn child. Which is it? What is going on here? Let us
not support a substitute that is more like a Magic 8-Ball.
This ambiguity is magnified by the fact that subsection 2(a) requires
that the conduct injuring or killing an unborn child ``result in the
conviction of the person so engaging.'' So does this indicate a
conviction must be obtained before the defendant may be charged with a
violation of subsection 2(a); or does it mean that the additional
punishment must be imposed at the trial for the predicate offense, so
long as it is imposed after the jury convicts based on the predicate
offense.
Mr. Speaker, is a separate charge necessary for the enhanced penalty
to be imposed? The substitute amendment simply makes no sense except
perhaps to criminals who will understand its significance crystal
clear. They get away with the heinous crime.
Unlike the current language of the bill, the substitute stunningly
contains no exemptions for abortion-related conduct, for conduct of the
mother, or for the medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her
unborn child. This omission leaves the substitute amendment open to the
charge that it would permit the prosecution of mothers who inflict harm
upon themselves or their unborn children, or doctors who kill or injure
unborn children during the provision of medical treatment. This
substitute as written is a magnet for a constitutional challenge.
{time} 1315
The substitute amendment also appears to mischaracterize the nature
of the injury that is inflicted when an unborn child is killed or
injured during the commission of a violent crime. Under the current
language of the bill, a separate offense is committed whenever an
individual causes a death or a bodily injury to a child who is in utero
at the time the conduct takes place.
The substitute amendment seems to transform the death of the unborn
child into the abstraction ``terminating a pregnancy.'' ``Bodily
injury'' inflicted upon the unborn child appears to become ``prenatal
injury.'' Both injuries are described as resulting from an
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.''
These abstractions ignore the fact that the death of an unborn child
occurs whenever a pregnancy is violently ``terminated'' by a criminal.
They also fail to recognize that a ``prenatal injury'' is an injury
inflicted upon a real human being in the womb of his or her mother.
For example, if an assault is committed, for example, on a Federal
employee, and her unborn child subsequently suffers from a disability
because of the assault, that injury cannot accurately be described as
an abstract injury to a ``pregnancy.'' It is an injury to a human
being. Our bill recognizes that. The substitute does not. The
substitute is thus fatally flawed and must be rejected.
The substitute amendment is so poorly drafted and ambiguous that
obtaining a conviction of a violent criminal under it will be almost
impossible. The substitute amendment is also subject to constitutional
attack because it contains no exemption for abortion-related conduct,
for conduct of the woman, or for medical treatment. And finally the
substitute amendment ignores the injuries inflicted by violent
criminals upon unborn children, transforming those injuries into mere
abstractions.
For these reasons, the substitute amendment should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just note that the gentleman's analysis, I thought, was both
confused and confusing. The bill is well-drafted. The reason why there
is no carve-out for abortion is that so far abortion is not a crime in
America. The bill is based on criminal conduct in the code.
Finally, I would just note that the gentleman may not know what a
miscarriage is, but those of us who have had one do understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support
for the Lofgren amendment and strong opposition to the underlying bill
without that amendment. We must be clear on one thing. H.R. 503, the
underlying bill,
[[Page H1643]]
is a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade, and there is no question whether it
would threaten a woman's right to reproductive choice. At the same
time, this bill does nothing to address the real need for Federal
measures to prevent and prosecute violent crimes against women.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the loss of a pregnancy through
violence to a woman is a tragedy for the woman and for her family. That
is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren amendment. The
Lofgren amendment recognizes that a crime causing the end of a
pregnancy is a crime against the woman. If my colleagues truly care
about women and children, vote for the Lofgren amendment and vote no on
H.R. 503 if the amendment is not included.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of holding criminals accountable
for their actions that affect the unborn. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act represents a much-needed clarification of current Federal
code to protect preborn children from violent crime.
Last year, the House voted 415-0 in favor of the Innocent Child
Protection Act. That act prevents any U.S. authority from carrying out
a death sentence on a pregnant woman. There is no difference between
the rationale of that bill and this one. If you believe in protecting
an innocent, preborn child when the criminal mother is to be executed,
you should agree that we must protect an innocent, preborn child when
its innocent mother is attacked.
This bill supports women who want to carry a child to term, and it
gives law enforcement the right to penalize someone who criminally
interferes with her ability to do so. This bill is pro-choice, if you
will. The choice in this case has already been made by the mother to
keep the child, and when a criminal act takes away that woman's choice,
there should be legal remedies to mete out punishment for that crime.
I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of the unborn and all
mothers who have chosen to carry a child to term. Support H.R. 503 and
reject the substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the Lofgren amendment.
I would like to point out to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Largent) that actually I want to hold criminals accountable for crimes
against pregnant women. Twenty-four States have higher penalties for
assault of a pregnant woman and, in Connecticut, for assault of an
elderly person. That is right and justified. If that is what this bill,
the underlying bill, did, I would strongly support it. It is what the
amendment does and that is why I support the amendment.
The amendment imposes much higher penalties, even up to the death
sentence, on people who assault a woman who is pregnant. But it does
something else.
I do find it almost unbelievable that my conservative colleagues
would advocate such a radical piece of legislation. This legislation is
truly extraordinary, because it changes the fundamental concept of law
that has governed America since its founding. What is radical about
this bill is not that it wants to punish people who assault pregnant
women; I want to do that, too. What is radical about this bill is that
for the first time under our laws, it will define fetal personhood. The
consequences are going to be extraordinary.
What happens if a woman has a miscarriage because she worked too
hard, she stayed up late, she drove herself, she did not take care of
herself, and she has a miscarriage? Is she going to be a murderer? That
may not be in this bill, but let me tell you, it is the next one down
the road. What if, for good reason, for health reasons, she has to have
an abortion? What if the doctor says, you will not survive if you do
not have an abortion? Is the doctor then a murderer?
That is the underlying goal of this bill. Do not hide it from
yourself. If you vote for it, know that you are voting for a radical
change in the American legal statutes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, when a woman and a child are assaulted or,
even more seriously than that, the child is killed, there are two
victims. The problem currently with our law is that we only recognize
one of those victims. That is the purpose of H.R. 503 and that is the
problem with the substitute. It fails to recognize one of the victims.
The gentlewoman before me made reference to the foundational
principles of this country. What is it that is unique, that defines
America? Why is America a different nation than other nations? Why is
it that people have chosen to immigrate here? I would suggest that a
great deal of our unique character is found in a sentence that says,
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' That is the purpose of
our law, to create equal protection, because each life is important to
us. That is a foundational American principle, and it is not currently
in our law.
That is the purpose of H.R. 503. This substitute does not protect one
of the victims of potential crimes, and that is the problem with the
substitute.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and to
support the very foundational principle that America is based on, that
all people deserve the protection of law.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership
on this and so many other issues important to women.
Mr. Speaker, today in this Chamber we rise again to protect a woman's
right to choose. Yes, once again. This full-scale assault on a woman's
right to choose is dangerous and it is wrong. As a woman, I am deeply
offended and angry.
First, President Bush reinstitutes the global gag rule as one of his
very first actions in office. And now we have the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act before us today. Where is the compassion for women?
I deplore acts of violence against women and stand as a strong
advocate against domestic violence and domestic abuse. However, while
this legislation claims to protect pregnant women, the reality is that
it will harm women. H.R. 503 represents a direct attack on the Supreme
Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, and therefore a woman's constitutional
right to reproductive freedom. The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence has indicated that H.R. 503 would actually worsen the plight
of women in domestic violence situations.
This substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is equally tough
on crimes against women without weakening our reproductive freedom. The
substitute recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of a
crime. However, it also allows for further punishment if that woman's
pregnancy is ended as a result of the attack.
If Congress wants to ensure safe pregnancies for both mothers and
babies, we should be passing legislation to increase access to prenatal
care and to support and strengthen WIC nutrition programs and food
stamp programs. But, instead, we are once again forced to speak out to
defend women's fundamental rights.
I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 503 for what it is, a
misguided initiative, dangerous and harmful to women. I urge a no vote
on H.R. 503 and support of this substitute.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, we have once again heard this described as an assault on
a woman's right to choose. I want to reiterate that the woman has made
her choice to keep that baby. It is the criminal that took away that
choice. We just want to punish that criminal more severely than he is
under existing law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
[[Page H1644]]
Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe how the substitute and the bill
actually works in the real world is to tell a story that actually
happened. You talk about an assault on Roe v. Wade; I am talking about
a assault on Shawana Pace, an African American woman who lived in
Arkansas. On August 26, 1999, she was kidnapped by three men, she was
pregnant, she was near her due date, she had already named the baby
Heaven once she got the ultrasound test back. She had a baby boy, and
she had already named her unborn child Heaven.
Her boyfriend, the father, former boyfriend, paid three people $400
to kidnap her and terminate her pregnancy because he did not want to
pay child support. They did that. They kidnapped her, they took her
away. She is lying on the floor and they are beating her within an inch
of her life, and one of them says, ``Your baby is dying tonight.''
Strangely enough, she was pleading for her baby's life, not hers.
The good news in this story, if there is any, is that the three
people plus the boyfriend, two of them are on death row in Arkansas
because Arkansas, several weeks before, had passed a law recognizing
the unborn child as a separate victim; and under that statute, the
prosecutor was able to bring a murder charge, not enhance the
punishment on the assault charge.
Now, I did not have the death penalty in this bill because I did not
want to get into that debate, but if this had happened in Federal
jurisdiction, there would have been no enhancing of the assault charge,
there would have been a murder charge because that is what they were
hired to do, that is what they did, and I think most Americans would
want them to be prosecuted for murder, not play some game of enhancing
punishment that ignores what really happened.
{time} 1330
They can do that without affecting Roe v. Wade. That is why I had so
many pro-choice votes last time. One can be pro-choice and still
support this bill. It happened before, and it is going to happen again
today. Those people that were hired to do a terrible thing get the full
force of the law because there is a statute on the books in Arkansas
that is just like the one that I am trying to pass here in Congress.
Rae Carruth, NFL football player, hired a person to kill his pregnant
girlfriend. She refused to have an abortion. He did not want to pay for
the child. The hit man charged $5,000 for the mother and $5,000 for the
baby, charged him twice.
Let us punish him twice. That is what this bill does.
The substitute is just an irrational way to deal with the unborn. We
can have an honest, healthy debate about abortion rights. In my bill, I
protect the right to have an abortion because it is the law of the
land; but pro-choice and pro-life people should come together when the
woman chooses to have the baby and put the full force and effect of the
law against a criminal who is paid or otherwise takes that life away.
They are not inconsistent.
It would be a better country if we passed this bill, and prosecutors
will have more tools because if one takes the murder or assault charge
off because they do not recognize the baby, the ability to fully
prosecute that case is undermined, and I think most prosecutors would
agree.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is my friend. He says
this is an assault on abortion. It is not. In his State, they passed
this same law using the same words in 1998.
People still have the Roe v. Wade rights in Pennsylvania, but people
assaulting pregnant women face stiffer penalties and more punishment
because of what Pennsylvania did.
Let us do this at the Federal level. Let us come together and make
sure that people in the future who take money or otherwise assault a
pregnant woman and destroy the unborn child are prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law, no excuses, no apologies.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to note that the Arkansas statute is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision, Meadows v. State, in
Arkansas, and I do hope that the monster who committed that heinous
crime does not walk because the statute is unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff), a former prosecutor and a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to speak on the
unique tragedy and trauma suffered with the loss of a child. I think
other Members have already spoken to that, and could speak to it with a
passion of familiarity that neither I nor any other male Member of this
Chamber could. Instead, I would like to speak as a former prosecutor,
someone who for 6 years went into court and prosecuted a variety of
Federal crimes, and has experience not only with the job of prosecuting
those cases but also handling the inevitable motions, the appellate
process, the habeas corpus petitions and all of the delays attendant to
litigating complex issues.
This is a criminal justice bill. This is a public safety measure. Its
ostensible purpose is to use the vehicle of the criminal justice system
to deter attacks on pregnant women, to incapacitate those who would
conduct them by lengthening the sentences, to bring about retribution
on those who would commit such a heinous act. All of the purposes of
the criminal justice system are served by both bill and substitute; but
if one has to choose as a prosecutor going into court under one law or
going into court on another, they would certainly choose to go into
court under a law that is less subject to constitutional challenge and
attack.
The bill, as it is drafted, using definitions like a member of the
species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the
womb, invites, demands in fact, constitutional litigation. As a
prosecutor, one can be assured in both motion and appeal to the highest
courts of the land they will be required to litigate when life begins
under the bill.
That is not required under the substitute. If it is our goal to give
prosecutors that extra tool, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) mentioned, if it is our goal to allow prosecutors to take more
vigorous action to have greater penalties at their beck and call to
deter, to incapacitate, to bring about retribution for these crimes,
let us choose a substitute which makes that possible without this
unprecedented constitutional litigation.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if one would imagine
with me an infant in a nursery in a hospital on life support. There is
a terrorist bomb or an arsonist fire, and that infant and several
others are killed. Can one imagine an argument that says that those
babies that were not on life support were murdered but the baby on life
support was not murdered?
Mr. Speaker, the preborn baby, in its mother's womb, is simply on
life support through the umbilical cord. When a pregnant woman is
killed, clearly two lives are snuffed out. There are two murders. When
a woman is assaulted, sometimes with the intention of killing that
preborn child who is simply on life support in her womb,
indistinguishable from a baby just born, clearly that also is murder.
This legislation is long past due. Defeat the amendment. Support the
base bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the fight for rights for women.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding and congratulate
her for her extraordinary leadership on this issue and so many other
issues before the committee protecting women.
Very simply, if one wants to punish people who attack pregnant women
and injure or destroy their fetuses, then vote for the Lofgren
substitute, because that is what it does. Its penalties are stricter.
If, however, the goal is to declare fetuses to be separate people
[[Page H1645]]
under the criminal code and to thereby further the right-to-life
movement, then the underlying bill is what should be voted for. That is
what the difference is about. The Bush administration is clearly in the
camp of the right-to-life movement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the statement of
administration policy that clearly supports the underlying bill that
erodes a woman's right to choose, knocks out one of the fundamental
pillars under Roe v. Wade.
Statement of Administration Policy
(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)
H.R. 503--Unborn victims of violence act of 2001 (Rep. Graham (R) SC
and 95 cosponsors)
The Administration supports protection for unborn children
and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The
legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause
death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the
course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill
also would make substantially identical amendments to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would
strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the
bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.
Mr. Speaker, vote for the Lofgren amendment. Vote for a woman's right
to choose and a reasonable approach to protect her and against the
underlying bill.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood
and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently
oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting
substitute in its stead? Why is it that on the floor of the House on a
very pleasant Thursday afternoon that so many intelligent and talented
and gifted lawmakers, to whom so much has been given, are going to such
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who
has been shot, beaten, stabbed or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become incapable
or unwilling of recognizing the obvious? Could it be denial?
Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine,
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative
procedures and healing, just like any other patient.
Is the concept of unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp,
even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mother?
Is it lacking in logic or courage or common sense or compassion? Have
the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in
medicine and the media, ripped off our capacity to think? Has the
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies, legally
enabled by Roe v. Wade, robbed us of our capability to see and to
understand and to empathize? Have unborn children now become mere
objects, a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists once
rightly rebelled against?
Does a mugger, Mr. Speaker, have an unfettered access to maim or kill
a baby without triggering a response for a separate penalty for that
crime?
For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women,
and that is as it should be. Crafting such protections and penalties
for perpetrators are among our highest responsibilities and duties as
lawmakers.
Last year, I am happy to say, I was the prime sponsor of bipartisan
legislation, Public Law 106-386, the Victims of Trafficking in Violence
Protection Act of 2000, a $3.4 billion comprehensive package of
sweeping new laws designed to protect women from violence at home and
overseas.
Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection,
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster; but
I would respectfully submit to my friends, so do children. A victim is
a victim no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize an
unborn child as a victim who is all too capable of suffering trauma,
disfigurement, disability or death?
Unborn children feel pain. Unborn children bleed and bruise easily.
Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant
wielding a knife, a gun or a steel pipe. The amniotic sac is like a
protective bubble, but it is not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily.
Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I met with Tracy Marciniak. Three
years ago, her husband beat her and killed her almost full-term baby.
The child, Zachariah, died from the bleeding; and this is what Tracy
has said to all of us: ``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal
known as the Lofgren amendment. I have read it,'' she said, ``and it is
offensive to me because it says there is only one victim in such a
crime, the woman who is pregnant. Please hear me on this,'' she goes on
to say. ``On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I
was nearly killed but I survived. Little Zachariah died,'' she goes on.
``Any law maker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren one-victim
amendment should first look at the picture of me holding my dead son at
the funeral. Then I would say to that representative,'' she continues,
``if you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the
one-victim but please remember Zachariah's name and face when you
decide.''
Vote for the underlying bill and against the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of
abortion activities in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead?
Why is it, that on the floor of the House of Representatives on a
pleasant Thursday afternoon in April, so many intelligent, talented and
gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given, are going to such
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who
has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
Could it be that America's abortion culture--a culture of death--has
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become
incapable--or unwilling--of recognizing the obvious? Could it be
``Denial'' with a Capital D?
Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine,
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative
procedures and healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of
unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp--even when we are not
talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger?
Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people--especially
in medicine and the media--ripped off our capacity to think? Has the
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies legally
enabled by Row v. Wade robbed us of our capability to see and
understand and empathize?
Is it a lacking in logic, or courage or common sense or compassion?
Have unborn children become mere objects--a dehumanizing and
deplorable status that feminists once rightly rebelled against?
Does a mugger--like an abortionist--have unfettered access to maim or
kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime?
For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women.
And that is as it should be. Crafting such protections--and penalties
for perpetrators--are among our highest responsibilities and duties as
lawmakers.
Last year, I was the Prime Sponsor of bipartisan PL 106-386,--
``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000--a $3.4
billion comprehensive package of sweeping new laws designed to protect
women from violence at home and overseas.
Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection,
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster.
But, I would respectfully submit--so do children. A victim is a
victim, it seems to me, no matter how small.
Why then is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim
who is all too capable of suffering serve trauma, disfigurement,
disability or death? Unborn children feel pain; unborn children bleed
and bruise easily; unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers
to an assailant wielding a knife, or gun, or steel pipe.
The amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it isn't made of
Kevlar. It pierces easily.
Earlier this week, I met with Tracy Marciniak. A few years ago her
husband beat her and her almost full term baby. The child--Zachariah--
died from the beating. Her attacker was charged and convicted of an
assault on Tracy. He did minimal time. No charges, however, were
brought against the
[[Page H1646]]
abuser for the crime--murder--he committed on Zachariah. Why? Because
Zachariah had no legal value or standing--and could be killed with
impunity.
Tracy has written:
Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Opponents of the bill have put forth a counter proposal,
known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is
offensive to me, because it says that there is only one
victim in such a crime--the women who is pregnant.
Please hear me on this: On the night of February 8, 1992,
there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived.
Little Zachariah died.
Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren
``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the picture of
me holding my dead son at his funeral.
Then I would say to that representative, ``If you really
think that nobody died that night, then vote for the ``one-
victim'' amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and
face when you decide.
Anybody who thinks there is no dead baby in this picture should vote
for the ``one-victim'' amendment. But anyone who sees a grieving mother
holding her dead son should vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act.
Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 503, if an unborn child is injured or killed
during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence,
then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of
the second victim--the unborn baby.
Of significance, 24 states have enacted laws recognizing unborn
children as victims of violent crime. In upholding the Minnesota
statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court said ``Roe v. Wade does not
protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third party unilateral
right to destroy the fetus.''
The Lofgren amendment, stripped of its surface appeal trappings and
enhanced penalty has one pro-abortion strategic objective--Denial.
Denial that an unborn child has inherent dignity. Denial that an unborn
child has worth. Denial that an unborn child has innate value. How
incredibly sad--and dangerous.
The Lofgren amendment must be rejected.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) asked, is there unfettered access for a mother to maim her
child at any time in the pregnancy? If one reads Roe, clearly post-
viability, the ability to secure abortions is severely limited only to
those cases where a woman's health is severely damaged. I think that
that needs to be made clear.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) for yielding me this time, and for her great leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary as well for facilitating the Lofgren amendment coming to
the floor.
It is masterful, it really is, because it answers the concerns that
are posed by the proposers of the original bill to expand the penalty
for those who commit violence against pregnant women, and it does so in
a way that achieves that goal but is constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that acts of violence against pregnant
women are reprehensible and should be punished. We all agree that acts
of violence that harm a fetus are obviously unacceptable and repulsive
to us. We can all agree that we must prevent violence against women
whether pregnant or not.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who just spoke, whom I
hold in very high esteem, asked the question how could otherwise
intelligent, caring people come to the floor and be opposed to this
legislation that is being opposed by our colleagues on the other side?
He said, could it be, he had a series of could-it-be's, that we could
ignore violence against a pregnant woman?
{time} 1345
But we are not ignoring it. The Lofgren amendment addresses it very
directly without doing violence to the issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute proposed by my
colleague. The substitute would create a separate Federal criminal
offense for harm to pregnant women, but would not confer new legal
status on the fetus.
So I respond to my colleague, could it be that, as a woman, I know a
little bit more about this subject than maybe he does? Could it be that
as a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and hopefully more
grandchildren to come, that I understand how reprehensible violence
against a pregnant woman is?
But if that is the issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) has responded to it. The bill on the floor is
unconstitutional. It is a move to undo, which it cannot do, unless it
is a constitutional amendment, but it is an attempt to undo Roe v.
Wade.
In 1973, we all know the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that the
unborn have never been recognized in the laws as persons in the whole
sense. The Court specifically rejected the theory that grants personage
to the fetus because it may override the rights of pregnant women that
are at stake.
I urge my colleagues to accept the solution that is here, that
addresses the problem in a constitutional way, and does not do violence
to a woman's rights.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in
opposition to the Lofgren amendment. It does not, as is claimed by its
supporters, accomplish the same goal that those who sponsored the
original bill, the underlying bill, have. In fact, it does complicate
and somewhat confuse the issue.
Claims have been made that are quite disingenuous regarding the
underlying bill and also regarding the effectiveness of the proposed
substitute. Firstly, the underlying bill is very clear about the
violent act that must be committed against the pregnant woman. Although
those supporters of the substitute claim that the pregnant woman is not
recognized, she clearly is. Federal law recognizes violence against
everyone as a crime, and enumerates a number of different crimes which
would be the basis for the actual use of this proposal, H.R. 503.
The amendment does not refer to these particular laws. It in fact
creates a separate offense which is unclear as to its effectiveness by
prosecutors. The other legislation that has been on the books has been
prosecuted many times. Those who were not even the intended victim of a
crime would still be, those women, would still be victims, as a result
of transferred intent. It is unclear in the substitute that that
principle would be able to be used.
Mr. Speaker, I would implore my colleagues to quit hiding from the
real issue. The real issue here is actual violence against women and
children. The real issue is a way for us to actually prosecute a more
severe crime when the woman is lucky enough to survive a dreadful
assault, but the child is not.
Our goal here is to recognize reality. What our responsibility is
here as Representatives is to recognize reality and to protect the
citizens of the United States, the women who are victims and the
children who are victims.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, I would like to note that the criminal offenses in H.R. 503
are exactly the same as those in the substitute, except that we do
require prosecution and then a separate prosecution for the
miscarriage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at the use of old-fashioned abortion
politics to get at a serious problem. Let me indicate just how serious
the problem is. I participated recently in a press conference called by
the American College of Nurses and Midwives here in the District of
Columbia, now published in an AMA Journal.
In the District of Columbia, autopsies had been performed on pregnant
women. What was discovered was that there were 13 homicides of pregnant
women that had not been reported along with maternal deaths. These 13
unreported deaths accounted for 38 percent of pregnancy-associated
deaths.
Now, these women had several things in common. They tended to be very
young, 15 to 19; they were unmarried; they were murdered early in their
pregnancy. There was no category in the FBI or accepted among the
States to report these deaths. I have written to
[[Page H1647]]
the FBI to ask that a category be created, and I have written to the
GAO asking that a study be done of such deaths throughout the country,
because clearly what we found here is nationwide.
What is our answer this afternoon? Our answer is a clearly
unconstitutional bill that defines a fetus as a person, in direct in-
your-face violation of Roe v. Wade. There is a real problem out there.
That problem is here in the Nation's capital. It is in your districts
as well.
The substitute, the Lofgren substitute, gives us an opportunity to do
something about a horrible crime, rather than play the same old
abortion politics we have been playing ever since Roe v. Wade. In the
name of nameless murdered pregnant women, unnoted even in the crime
records, let us seize the opportunity to pass a constitutional bill
that will help eliminate a crime of immense and unspeakable
seriousness.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all
Members and persons in the Chamber that it is the Speaker's policy that
all audible devices be disabled before entering the House Chamber.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I respect the right of
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to take the position she
does. But let me address it as a father myself of two beautiful
daughters and an adopted son.
If my wife was attacked and she was pregnant, or my daughters, and
they both survived, then I would support the enhancement clause that
the gentlewoman is trying to put in here. If either my wife or the
unborn child was killed, then I would want justice, not enhancement. As
a father, to know that a child that I was going to have that would not
be born in this life because of some criminal act, I feel that that is
wrong.
In Bosnia there was a Muslim that offered a private a child and says,
``Help me get my child to the hospital.'' On the way, the Muslim man
said that, ``Help me, private.'' The point is that they are all our
children.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the Lofgren-Conyers amendment
is not a sentencing enhancement measure; it is a second offense that is
prosecuted and hopefully convicted in the case of heinous crime.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time and for her leadership, and the ranking member for his leadership
as well.
This should be a debate, Mr. Speaker, about protecting women against
violence, specifically about protecting pregnant women against
violence, and the Lofgren amendment, the Lofgren substitute, does just
that. It makes a new and very specific crime against violence to a
pregnant woman that injures the fetus or terminates the pregnancy. That
is the appropriate way to give such protection to pregnant women.
The underlying bill politicizes this issue. I do not think it is
intended to politicize the issue, but it does, because it would give to
the fetus a legal status that the courts nor Congress have ever given.
It would give to the fetus the same legal status and a separate legal
status from the woman, and that is the heart of the abortion debate. By
writing their bill in such a fashion, they open up the whole floodgate
to the very polarizing and politicized abortion debate that has not
moved forward nor helped us deal with the issue at hand.
We should focus on potential injury to the woman, to violence to the
pregnant woman, and pass the Lofgren substitute that is carefully
written, that is constitutional, that is effective. It avoids the
polarizing debate that prohibits us from solving this problem. The
Lofgren substitute gets the job done. We should vote for it to protect
women.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act is the first volley this term by the anti-
choice legislators to restrict a woman's right to choose. This bill
would add to the Federal criminal code a separate new offense to punish
individuals who injure or cause the death of a child which is in utero,
regardless of the stage of development. It sounds innocuous enough, but
in essence it is a sham.
No one would argue that an attack on a pregnant woman that results in
a miscarriage or an injury is not a tragedy. As one of the most vocal
leaders in Congress on behalf of women and families, I have spoken on
this House floor numerous times to end violence against women and
domestic violence of all sorts.
But that is not what we are talking about here today. H.R. 503
eliminates the mother from the picture. She is of no concern. Instead,
it affords an embryo the legal status that should be hers as a human
being. Precisely the goal that the authors of H.R. 503 and the National
Right to Life Committee seek to achieve is reaching this status.
The supporters candidly admit that their purpose is to recognize the
existence of a separate legal person, separate from its mother, before
it is born. And supporters rejected a number of alternative tougher
ways to address violence against the pregnant woman, each time citing
the reason being that the alternative did not recognize embryonic
personage.
Do not be fooled. This is an anti-choice bill disguised as a crime
bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute
which will provide the same penalties but does not separate the fetus
from its mother.
Last Friday, the press reported that President Bush does not intend
to launch a frontal attack on Roe v. Wade or let his Presidency become
mired in this controversy. If that is true, then we hope that we will
not see more of these bills. In the meantime, please vote for the
Lofgren substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that both pro-choice and anti-choice Members of
this body will vote for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. It provides
stronger penalties and greater protections in the case of assault on a
pregnant woman.
I note, and this is especially important to me and others who have
spoken today from personal experience, that the protection will be to
those who are in their 6th week of pregnancy, just as in their eighth
month of pregnancy, and that is enormously important to us all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), for the splendid substitute
that she has let me help her work on, that we hope will bring us all
back together.
Just a couple of points: Please let everyone that is voting on this
measure know that the substitute is not a penalty enhancement. Lofgren-
Conyers is not a penalty enhancement. It provides a new and separate
offense for harm to a pregnant woman that can cause injury or
termination of her pregnancy.
{time} 1400
It contains two separate offenses. We got that out of the way.
Okay, next. The substitute is tougher on criminals than is H.R. 503.
Under the substitute, if a pregnancy is terminated, even
unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. By
comparison, H.R. 503, the criminal must intentionally terminate
pregnancy in order to get a life sentence. There is a big, big
difference there.
Now, to the reality of the matter. Because the major bill, H.R. 503,
undermines Roe v. Wade, the Senate is not going to take it up. The
Senate is not going to take up H.R. 503. We must come to that reality.
They did not take it up in the last Congress; they will not take it up
in this Congress in its present form. So if my friends on the other
side of the aisle really want to protect unborn children, they will
join us in supporting the substitute. So we are begging that our
colleagues put
[[Page H1648]]
policy above the normal abortion politics.
Now, there is still the heart of the matter here that under the 14th
amendment, as provided in Roe, ``person'' as used in the 14th amendment
does not include the unborn. We cannot change that. We are not here to
change it today. In the 28 years since Roe, the Supreme Court has never
afforded legal personhood to a fetus. So in the name of all of the
women and the men in this country that support a woman's right to
choose, please join with me in supporting the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute. We think it would be a beautiful day forward, and we will
give this bill the life that it needs to go to the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the substitute and the rejection
of the base bill, H.R. 503.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Once again, we
keep hearing the term, ``a woman's right to choose''; and I just want
to say again that the woman chose to have the baby, it is the criminal
that took away her right by killing her baby. And we are just trying to
make it tougher on those criminals and to make the penalties much
tougher and make it a separate offense if they take that child's life
or harm that life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), my good friend. I am asking my colleagues to vote against the
substitute and for the underlying bill.
When one writes a bill that says you cannot prosecute someone under
the bill who is performing a lawful abortion, you can never prosecute
the mother for any of her conduct, you cannot prosecute medical
providers, one would think it would not be about abortion. But some
people want to talk about that, and that is politics. That is okay.
That is the way politics works.
I want to talk about the law and common sense. If one is a prosecutor
and can pick between the substitute and my bill, I think every
prosecutor I know of would pick my bill, because you could really have
the full force and effect of the law against the criminal.
Abortion rights are not going to be enhanced by voting against my
bill and for the substitute. The only person that wins is the criminal.
In the Arkansas case, she was begging for her baby's life and the
criminal was saying, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' Let us get
together as a Congress in saying, once the woman chooses to have the
baby and she is assaulted by a criminal who is paid to terminate her
pregnancy through beating her and her baby to death, that that is a
crime, not a fiction.
She is begging for the baby's life; the man is saying, ``I am going
to take your baby away from you tonight.'' Let us have a statute that
allows that person to be prosecuted for what they intended to do, and
that is, kill the unborn child; and in that statute, you protect Roe v.
Wade rights.
The pro-choice people who voted for my bill last year, thank you. You
can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. People say that it is possible.
This is a case of being pro-choice, but not being pro-abortion because
there is no reason to let the criminal go or diminish their punishment
with a poorly drafted substitute, simply because one is worried about
abortion when it is not covered by the bill.
Let us focus our energies on putting criminals in jail when the
mother chooses to have the baby. America will be better, prosecutors
will have better tools, and we can go home and look pro-life and pro-
choice people in the eye and say, Congress responded to a very serious
event in a very logical way.
Please vote for the bill and against the underlying substitute. A lot
is at stake. America will be better if we could pass this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lofgren
substitute. Unlike the underlying bill before the House today, the
substitute truly addresses the serious issue of violence against women
and would impose stricter penalties for causing harm to a fetus or
forcibly terminating a pregnancy than exist today.
Surely if we can find common ground on nothing else, we should all be
able to agree that crimes against women that cause the loss of a
pregnancy are tragic and deplorable acts. These crimes ought to be
punished severely.
The fundamental problem with the underlying bill is that it ignores
where and when these crimes most often occur. H.R. 503 establishes
criminal punishments for those who harm a fetus while committing any
one of 68 specified federal crimes. The difficulty with this approach
is that few of these crimes are actually tried in federal court, and
many of the listed offenses are unlikely to result in harm to pregnant
women. For example, how many pregnant women are impacted each year as a
result of transactions involving nuclear materials? How many
pregnancies are lost each year due to assaults or kidnappings of
Members of Congress, the President's cabinet or members of the Supreme
Court? The answer is: not many.
At the same time, the bill is completely silent on the much more
prevalent problem of domestic violence. It is estimated that domestic
violence victimizes one million women a year. How can we discuss
punishment of violence against pregnant women and ignore the crimes
where this violence most often occurs?
The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates legal protection
that truly helps women and punishes violence resulting in injury or
termination of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence
for injury to a women's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for violent
conduct against a woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. It
makes it a federal crime. The substitute focuses on the harm to the
pregnant woman, providing a deterrent against violence.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose the
underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 503, ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' I am pleased that
the ``Lofgren Substitute'' to H.R. 503, the ``Unborn Victims of
Violence Act of 2001,'' brings the real issue of who is victimized in
clear fashion. The substitute would replace the term ``unborn
children'' where it appears in the appropriate places throughout the
bill with ``violence during pregnancy.'' The result of my amendment
would essentially ensure that the legislation recognizes the pregnant
woman as the crime victim, not the ``unborn child.''
The substitute seeks to address what I believe is a veiled attempt to
create a legal status for the unborn. While I sympathize with the
mothers who have lost fetuses due to the intentional violent acts of
others, I believe, however, that H.R. 503 would obscure the rights of
women. The substitute would prevent this legislation from opening the
door to future legislation by which a woman could be held civilly or
criminally liable for fetal injuries caused by behavior during her
pregnancy that might have potentially adverse effects on her fetus
including failing to eat properly, using prescription, nonprescription
and illegal drugs, being exposed to infectious disease, engaging in
immoderate exercise or sexual intercourse or using general anesthetic
or drugs to include rapid labor during delivery.
A new status of ``human-ness'' extended to the unborn fetus of a
pregnant woman creates a situation of constitutional uneasiness. While
the proponents of this bill claim that the bill would not punish women
who choose to terminate their pregnancies, this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's
destruction of a fetus. This bill will create a slippery slope that
will result in doctors being sued for performing abortions, especially
if the procedure is controversial, such as partial birth abortion.
Although this bill exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the
fetus, the potential for increased civil liability is present. Thus,
disenchanted husbands and relatives would be able to bring suit who
exercises her right to choose.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lofgren Substitute. We
do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses. A
better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
119, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
[[Page H1649]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 229, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--229
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Capps
Lantos
Leach
Meek (FL)
Moakley
Roybal-Allard
{time} 1427
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, CRENSHAW, WHITFIELD, GILCHREST and PORTMAN
and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 172, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
YEAS--252
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--172
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
[[Page H1650]]
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Rush
NOT VOTING--7
Capps
Jones (OH)
Lantos
Leach
Meek (FL)
Moakley
Roybal-Allard
{time} 1447
Mr. BONIOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted ``yes'' on
rollcall 88. I then walked to the well thinking I was voting on 89 and
I voted ``no''. Therefore, my vote on 88 was changed to ``no'' and I
was not recorded on 89. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall 89.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, due to a longstanding commitment to deliver
a graduation commencement address, I am unable to be present to vote
against H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act today. Had I been
present I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 503 because
this legislation is an attack on a woman's right to choose.
____________________