[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H792-H797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 2175) to protect infants who are born alive.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2175

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Born-Alive Infants 
     Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' 
       as including born-alive infant

       ``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or 
     of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various 
     administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the 
     words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', 
     shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens 
     who is born alive at any stage of development.
       ``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with 
     respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 
     complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of 
     that member, at any stage of development, who after such 
     expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, 
     pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of 
     voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord 
     has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or 
     extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, 
     cesarean section, or induced abortion.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, 
     deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right 
     applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any 
     point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including 
              born-alive infant.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2175, the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, the Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act, is to protect all infants who are born alive by 
recognizing them as a person, human being, child or individual for 
purposes of Federal law. This recognition would take effect upon the 
live birth of an infant, regardless of whether or not his or her 
development is sufficient to permit long-term survival and regardless 
of whether or not he or she survived an abortion.
  It has long been an accepted legal principle that infants who are 
born alive are persons and thus entitled to the protections of the law. 
Many States have statutes that explicitly enshrine this principle as a 
matter of State law and some Federal courts have recognized the 
principle in interpreting Federal criminal laws. However, recent 
changes in the legal and cultural landscape appear to have brought this 
well-settled principle into question.
  In its July 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States 
Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth 
abortion. In doing

[[Page H793]]

so, the Carhart court considered the location of an infant's body at 
the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion, delivered partly 
outside the body of the mother, to be of no legal significance. Indeed, 
two members of the majority, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, went so far 
as to say that it was, quote, ``irrational,'' unquote, for the Nebraska 
legislature to take the location of the infant at the point of death 
into account. Thus, as Justice Scalia noted in dissent, the result of 
the Carhart ruling is to give live-birth abortion free rein.
  Following Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit made this point explicit in the case of Planned 
Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer when it struck down New 
Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit, 
under Roe v. Wade and Carhart, it is nonsensical and based upon 
semantic machinations and irrational line-drawing for a legislature to 
conclude that an infant's location in relation to his or her mother's 
body has any relevance in determining whether or not an infant may be 
killed.
  The logical implications of Carhart and Farmer are both obvious and 
disturbing. Under the logic of these decisions, once a child is marked 
for abortion, it is wholly irrelevant whether the child emerges from 
the womb as a live baby. That child may still be treated as though he 
or she did not exist, and would have not the slightest rights under the 
law, no right to receive medical care, to be sustained in life, or to 
receive any care at all. If a child who survives an abortion is born 
alive and had no claim to the protections of the law, there would be no 
basis upon which the government may prohibit an abortionist from 
completely delivering an infant before killing it or allowing it to 
die. The right to abortion, under this logic, means nothing less than 
the right to a dead baby, no matter where the killing takes place. 
Thus, the Carhart and Farmer rulings have essentially brought our legal 
system to the threshold of accepting infanticide itself, making it 
necessary to firmly establish the ``born alive'' principle in Federal 
law.
  The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is designed to repudiate the 
destructive ideas that have brought the born-alive rule into question, 
and to firmly establish that, for purposes of Federal law, an infant 
who is completely expelled and extracted from his or her mother and who 
is alive is, indeed, a person under the law.
  This bill draws a bright line between the right to abortion and 
infanticide, or the killing or criminal neglect of completely born 
children. The bill clarifies that a born-alive infant's legal status 
under Federal law does not depend upon the infant's gestational age or 
whether the infant's birth occurred as a result of natural or induced 
labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
  Thus, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act protects the legal status 
of all children born alive and affirms that every child who is born 
alive has an intrinsic dignity which does not depend upon the interests 
or convenience of anyone else.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2175.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We today consider legislation reaffirming an important principle 
which is enshrined in the laws of all 50 States and unquestioned in 
law, that an infant who is born and who is living independently of the 
birth mother is entitled to the same care as any other child similarly 
diagnosed regardless of whether labor was induced or occurred 
spontaneously. It has never been particularly clear to me why we need 
to legislate that which most Members of Congress and the general public 
already understand to be the law; but if the majority is interested in 
restating well-settled law, there is no harm to that.
  The same measure passed last year as an amendment to the Patients' 
Bill of Rights legislation in the Senate by a vote of 98-0, which is 
about as uncontroversial as something can get. Certainly it proved to 
be less controversial than the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I am pleased that the majority has made a serious effort in this 
draft of the bill to make clear that this bill has nothing to do with 
matters related to abortion, even going so far as to add subsection (c) 
further clarifying that point. Whatever concerns some may have had that 
this bill might be some clever way to undermine the rights protected 
under Roe v. Wade have, I think, been eliminated. Unless someone 
attempts to disrupt this effort by dragging the abortion debate back 
into it, I have little doubt that the bill will pass without much 
controversy.
  I would like to address the concern that our Republican colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), has enunciated most 
eloquently.

                              {time}  1415

  That is the standard of care employed by neonatologists when faced 
with a nonviable newborn or clearly critical ill or massively deformed 
newborn. These are difficult medical issues and often horrendous 
circumstances which confront families hoping for the gift of 
parenthood.
  I am aware of the fact that these are complex issues with which 
doctors, hospitals, families and courts grapple every day. What is 
important to remember is that this legislation, by its plain meaning 
and by the stated intent of the authors, does not intrude into these 
difficult decisions or change the standard of care required by law.
  As the committee's report makes clear, ``The protections afforded 
newborn infants under H.R. 2175 for purposes of Federal law are 
consistent with the protections afforded those infants under the laws 
of the 30 States and the District of Columbia that define a live birth 
in virtually identical terms. Like those laws, H.R. 2175 would not 
mandate medical treatment where none is currently indicated. While 
there is debate about whether or not to aggressively treat premature 
infants below a certain birth weight, this is a dispute about medical 
efficacy, not regarding the legal status of the patient. That is, the 
standard of medical care applicable in a given situation involving a 
premature infant is not determined by asking whether that infant is a 
person. Medical authorities who argue that treatment below a given 
birth weight is futile are not arguing that these low-birth-weight 
infants are not persons, only that providing treatment in these 
circumstances is not warranted under the applicable standard of medical 
care. H.R. 2175 would not affect the applicable standard of care, but 
would ensure simply that all born-alive infants, regardless of their 
age and regardless of the circumstances of their birth, are treated as 
persons for purposes of Federal law.''
  I do not want to trivialize the concerns of neonatologists, but I was 
gratified by the testimony that we received from the majority witnesses 
at our subcommittee hearing on this legislation, which indicated that, 
while an infant may be considered ``born alive'' under this 
legislation, this proposed law would not in any way substitute the 
medical judgment of Congress for the judgment of doctors on the scene 
or interfere with the painful decisions that families must make under 
the most difficult of circumstances. We must respect families and not 
have the big hand of government make their worst moments even more 
unbearable. I trust the sponsors of this legislation are in agreement 
on this point.
  There has been some debate over the question, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin mentioned this, whether there is some sort of recognized 
legal right to a dead baby when a parent intends to abort a fetus. My 
colleagues well know that the line drawn by the Supreme Court is that 
of viability within the womb, and that outside the womb the normal laws 
governing the appropriate care of newborns, taking into account the 
prognosis made by a trained health care provider, apply. This bill 
reinforces the law as we know it to be. It does not change it in any 
respect.
  I hope that we can agree for once to avoid the overheated rhetoric, 
deal with the bill in front of us and not some other unrelated 
grievance. As the Hippocratic Oath states, it will ``do no harm.'' If 
we must put on a show for some of the antiabortion extremists, let us 
get over it and get back to dealing with the real problems this country 
has.
  I want to say also with respect to the comments of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin of, the question of born alive, of

[[Page H794]]

a right to a dead baby, has been joined into question only in the 
fevered imaginations of some in the antichoice camp. But there is no 
harm in assuaging their concerns, there is no harm in making clear that 
the law is what we always know it to be. There is no right to a dead 
baby in an attempted abortion. There is no right, it is against the 
law, it is murder, to kill an infant born alive. The cases that were 
cited did not deal with a baby born alive under the definition in this 
bill, which is also the definition of the laws of most of the States, 
it dealt with a baby prebirth.
  So there is no problem with this bill, it has nothing to do with 
abortion, it does not do harm to neonatology, and I see no harm in 
passing the bill. I see no good in passing the bill either, except that 
it will satisfy the concerns of some people about some recent Supreme 
Court decisions, and that is a useful enough thing, so we can get back 
to debating the real issues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of not quitting while I 
am ahead, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), 
who will tell the Members what good this bill will do.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me time, and also for his leadership in moving forward on this 
important piece of legislation.
  Last summer, over 70 original cosponsors joined with me in 
introducing H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The 
purpose of this bill is to respond to recent legal and cultural 
developments and protect all infants who are born alive by recognizing 
them as a ``person, human being, child or individual'' for purposes of 
Federal law.
  Recent court decisions have called into question the rights entitled 
to newborn babies. Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision in 
the Stenberg v. Carhart case, the long-accepted legal principle that 
infants who are born alive are persons entitled to the protections of 
the law has been called into question, bringing our culture and legal 
system closer than ever believed possible to accepting infanticide.
  By failing to recognize as legally significant the location of an 
infant's body at the moment it is killed during an abortion, the 
Court's ruling opened the door for future courts to conclude that the 
location of an infant's body at the moment it is killed during an 
abortion, even if fully born, has no legal significance whatsoever.
  The principle that born-alive infants are entitled to protection of 
the law is also being questioned at one of America's most prestigious 
universities. Amazingly, Princeton University bioethicist, Peter 
Singer, argues that the life of a newborn baby is ``of no greater value 
than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, 
self-consciousness, awareness or capacity to feel.'' Thus, ``Killing a 
disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very 
often, it is not wrong at all.''
  Think of that.
  If such logic is allowed to go unchecked, the end result will be 
legal and moral confusion as to the status of newborn infants that are 
on the outskirts of viability or were marked for abortion prior to 
their unintended birth.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I presided over 
hearings during which the subcommittee received credible and disturbing 
testimony that such confusion already exists. According to eyewitness 
accounts, live-birth abortions are being performed on healthy infants 
as late as the 23rd week of pregnancy, and beyond, that suffer from 
nonfatal deformities resulting in live-born premature infants who are 
simply allowed to die, sometimes without the provision of warmth or 
nutrition.
  Our subcommittee was told of a living infant who was found in a 
soiled utility closet; another who was found naked on the edge of a 
sink; and another infant who, horribly, was wrapped in a disposable 
towel and thrown in the trash, only to be later found after falling out 
of the towel and onto the floor.
  One witness, Nurse Jill Stanek, told the subcommittee about a live-
birth abortion performed on a healthy infant at more than 23 weeks of 
gestation, and stated, ``If the mother had wanted everything done for 
her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, 
neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and 
the baby would have been taken to our neonatal intensive care unit for 
specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery 
were an obstetrical resident and my coworker. After delivery, the baby, 
who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and 
kept in the Labor and Delivery Department until she died 2\1/2\ hours 
later.''
  In my hometown of Cincinnati, a woman delivered a living 22-week-old 
baby girl after going through with the first steps of an unsuccessful 
partial birth abortion procedure. Reportedly, the attending emergency 
room physician placed the live baby in a specimen dish and asked that 
the baby be taken to the lab. The medical technician, Shelly Lowe, 
refused after she saw the baby girl gasping for breath. Instead, she 
held the baby, whom she named Hope, for 3 hours, singing to her and 
stroking her cheeks, until she died. Ms. Lowe has said that she 
``wanted her to feel that she was wanted; that she was a perfectly 
formed newborn entering the world too soon through no choice of her 
own.''
  Had any of these newborns been assessed for their likelihood of long-
term survival, medical research suggests that there is a strong chance 
that they would have survived. Infants born alive at 23 weeks currently 
have almost a 40 percent chance of sustained survival; those born at 24 
weeks, a greater than 50 percent chance of survival; and those born at 
25 weeks now have an 80 percent chance of survival. With medical 
technology rapidly improving, these survival rates will only improve.
  The definition of ``born alive'' contained in H.R. 2175 was derived 
from a model definition of ``live birth'' that was promulgated by the 
World Health Organization in 1950 and is, with minor variations, 
currently codified in 30 States and the District of Columbia.
  Like those laws, H.R. 2175 would not mandate medical treatment where 
none is currently indicated. While there is debate about whether or not 
to aggressively treat prematurely born infants below a certain birth 
weight, this is a dispute about medical efficiency, not regarding the 
legal status of the patient.
  H.R. 2175 would not affect the applicable standard of care, but would 
only ensure that all born-alive infants, regardless of their age and 
regardless of the circumstances of their birth, are treated as persons 
for purposes of Federal law.
  I urge all Members to support this bill of compassion that says that 
all of America's children are precious and deserving of the most basic 
dignities afforded human life.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments. The gentleman from Ohio 
mentioned the hearings that were conducted on this bill and the 
testimony of Nurse Jill Stanek. It is very interesting that two 
hearings were held on this bill, two separate years, with the exact 
same witnesses. The majority could not find more than one witness, 
Nurse Stanek, to describe these allegedly horrible things that are 
occurring.
  The majority's witness, Dr. Bowes, said even in the situations 
described by majority witness Nurse Jill Stanek, Dr. Bowes, the 
majority witness stated, ``I don't think this legislation changes 
medical care for those babies.''
  The fact is, we cannot guarantee that in a country as large as this, 
where the laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia already 
say what this bill would say, that we cannot guarantee no one violates 
the law. We cannot guarantee it. Nonetheless, the majority has not been 
able to point to one prosecution.
  Now, it may be, assuming that what Nurse Stanek described actually 
happened, most of her testimony was hearsay, but assuming it was true, 
maybe the authorities in that county should have prosecuted.
  But the fact is, the courts have been very clear, there is no such 
thing as the right to a live-birth abortion. A baby born alive is a 
human being under the terms of the law in all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia. This bill

[[Page H795]]

merely restates that, so we have no problem with that.
  But we should not get into the rhetoric, we should not get into the 
overheated rhetoric of the few who wish to suggest that viable, healthy 
infants are being allowed to die in our Nation's hospitals. It is 
simply not true. If it is true, then people ought to be prosecuted for 
murder, and the fault, if it is true, lies with the prosecuting 
authorities wherever that may happen.
  So I do not think there is a big problem here. The court decisions 
that were cited all referred to babies or to fetuses really still in 
utero. Once outside of the mother's body, they are babies, there is no 
legal right to kill them. God forbid. It would be murder. This bill 
does not change that. There is no harm in restating it, I think. I 
think we have taken care of the concerns of the neonatologists about 
the standard of care.
  So I support the bill simply to put at rest the fevered apprehensions 
about nonexistent threats. But let us not overstate those nonexistent 
threats, and if they are existent, they ought to be prosecuted. If the 
majority really knows of such cases, I hope they get on the cases of 
whoever the district attorney is and say, why are you not doing 
something about them, because it is already against the law, unless, of 
course, the descriptions of those cases are not as stated. But if they 
are as stated, the law already makes that murder. This bill retains 
that as murder.
  It is a harmless bill. It is a bill that does nothing, but is 
harmless. And why not put people's fears at rest? So I still urge 
people to support the bill. But we should not get carried away and 
imagine that under the guise or name of ``abortions'' any of this 
nonsense is going on, because if it is going on, it is murder under the 
law today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of the Born-Alive 
Infants Protection Act.
  The law would require that babies born alive be treated as babies. It 
seems simple. I agree with the gentleman that should be the way it is 
today. But, unfortunately, our society has blurred this issue and some 
have made it, one, an issue of the parents' interest, or in this case, 
lack of interest in a newborn. Babies now born at 23 weeks generally 
survive. Some born even earlier have survived.
  Some critics of the legislation argue it is not necessary because 
what was alleged by one of our witnesses and several others that we 
have spoken with does not happen.

                              {time}  1430

  It currently does happen. It clearly does happen. We would not be 
dealing with this issue if it did not happen.
  Ms. Stanek was just one of the individuals we spoke with through the 
committee. She brought with her other people who had also witnessed 
this type of action in a hospital, no less; a place where people go to 
receive care. Unfortunately, babies involved in induced-labor abortions 
were left to die, even though those children were born alive. It is 
every instance that will be covered, however. A child born alive, 
whether the labor is induced or not, should be treated as a child.
  It seems like it should not be necessary for us to make this law. 
However, it was stated earlier today that viable, healthy infants are 
being permitted to die according to those of us who support this 
legislation. If we remove those adjectives, viable and healthy, that 
seems to except that infants who maybe are not healthy are being left 
to die.
  Is it okay for us to allow unhealthy or maybe even unviable infants 
to be left to die on a cold shelf abandoned in some kind of cart in a 
hospital? It is not. This society must stand up for those who are the 
weakest. It is our responsibility as Members of the House to do so. 
That is why we support the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2175, 
the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001.
  Many individuals who support a woman's right to choose have argued 
that this bill is harmless because it restates existing law. I oppose 
this bill because it mischaracterizes current abortion rights law and 
may create confusion among physicians who provide emergency care to 
pregnant women. Concerns have been raised that H.R. 2175 would obligate 
physicians to provide care beyond recognized standards, and that 
failure to adhere would raise the issue of liability. More importantly, 
I oppose this bill because it is yet another attempt to chip away at a 
woman's right to choose.
  Pro-life advocates have opposed and attempted to erode reproductive 
rights in a number of ways: by imposing waiting periods, by denying 
women information about their own health choices, by restricting or 
removing funding for contraception and family planning efforts, and at 
the most radical by terrorizing physicians and clinic workers. The 
current Administration has signaled its intent to pursue this line of 
advocacy.
  In April 2001 the Bush Administration proposed to remove 
contraceptive coverage for federal employees. Only a groundwell of 
opposition restored this benefit, which the Office of Management and 
Budget found added nothing to the cost of federal health benefits. 
Again in 2002, the Bush Administration has proposed to end 
contraceptive coverage for federal employees, even though ending such 
coverage would violate Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex 
discrimination in the workplace. In addition, the Administration has 
proposed cutting Title X funding family planning programs that provide 
critical family planning and related health services to millions of 
low-income families.
  Make no mistake--advocating on behalf of women's health care and 
reproductive rights entails stating the core issue of reproductive 
rights: Who gets to decide? Who decides what a woman does with her own 
body?
  Access to birth control and abortion is part of the larger struggle 
for access to health care for all women. In 1973 the Supreme Court 
legalized abortion. Yet today, 20% of women who want to have an 
abortion cannot obtain one. Lack of funding, restrictive legislation, 
and campaigns of terror and harassment by the antiabortion movement 
have severely eroded abortion rights.
  While public attention has focused on restrictions of women's choices 
through legislation and judicial decisions, abortion services have been 
undermined in more basic ways. Through harassment and violence directed 
at doctors and other health care providers, as well as medical schools 
and hospitals, anti-choice forces have discouraged both the teaching 
and provision of abortions. As a result, abortion services have been 
eliminated in large parts of the country and a critical shortage of 
abortion providers and services has developed. As with all other 
attacks on access to abortion, these restrictions have the greatest 
impact on low-income women, rural women, and women of color.
  A number of solutions support reproductive rights:

       Opposing hospital mergers with institutions that prohibit 
     reproductive health services;
       Developing the role of non-physician clinicians as women's 
     healthcare providers, including nurses, midwives, nurse 
     practitioners, and physicians assistants in abortion;
       Increasing abortion training for medical residents;
       Increasing awareness of reproductive choice and abortion 
     access as a public health issue and encouraging research in 
     the field;
       Creating innovative public education campaigns;
       Publishing directories of reproductive health and abortion 
     providers in English, Spanish, and other languages where 
     women lack access to information and health services;
       Creating coalitions of like-minded organizations which have 
     an interest in women's reproductive health and abortion, such 
     as: American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, NOW, National 
     Lawyer's Guild, National Women's Law Center, and numerous 
     health care providers and unaffiliated activists.

  In the 1986 case Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & 
Gynecologists, Justice Harry Blackmun stated ``Few decisions are more 
personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to 
individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision whether to end 
her pregnancy. A woman's right to make that choice freely is 
fundamental.''
  The terrorist events of 2001 focused our country on fundamental 
values such as freedom, commitment, and tolerance. Bills such as the 
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 ultimately seek to curtail 
the freedom of choice held dear by the majority of the American public. 
We cannot afford to ignore challenges which seek to restrict the 
freedom of women to control their reproductive capacity, their decision 
to bear children, and the shape of their destiny.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, there are some things in life 
that are beyond the realm of sanity. There are some things that are 
just so heinous--so cruel--they surpass verbal description. The bill 
before the

[[Page H796]]

House today addresses such an instance. We are considering a measure to 
ban the killing of an infant after the baby has been delivered.
  The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 states that anytime the 
word ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child'' or ``individual'' is 
written in law or regulations, it will include every infant member of 
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
  Infanticide has no place in a civilized society. All children should 
be welcomed into life. I commend the sponsors of this legislation for 
bringing to light an injustice to innocent children and urge my 
colleagues to once again pass this bill.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Infants 
Protection Act, I strongly support its passage. This bill would firmly 
establish that, for purposes of federal law, an infant who is born 
alive is, indeed, a person and is entitled to the protections of the 
law. This concept has been a standing legal principle, spelled out in 
many state statutes and recognized by some federal courts in 
interpreting federal criminal laws. However, recent changes in the 
legal and cultural landscape appear to have brought this well-settled 
principle into question and have made it necessary for the Congress to 
ensure that this principle becomes law.
  A significant change in how the law defines a person occurred with 
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Nebraska law banning 
partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which 
a doctor delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains 
inside of the mother, punctures the back of the child's skull with 
scissors and sucks the child's brains out before completing the 
delivery. The Court's decision found that the location of an infant at 
the time of death--delivered partly outside the body of the mother--is 
of no legal significance. The Court's decision implies that a partially 
born infant's entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent 
upon whether or not the partially born child's mother wants him or her.
  The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was also introduced partly to 
respond to testimony that ``live-birth abortions'' are performed around 
the country. A registered nurse from Illinois testified before Congress 
that she witnessed pregnant mothers being prematurely induced and 
delivering living premature infants that were then left to die without 
any medical attention. The hospital where this occurred defended its 
actions by saying that the newborns were intended for abortion. In 
other instances, babies whose lungs are insufficiently developed to 
permit sustained survival are often spontaneously delivered alive, and 
may live for hours or days, while some are born alive following 
deliveries induced for medical reasons.
  The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act would ensure that any infant 
born alive is treated with the dignity and respect of a human being and 
given appropriate medical attention regardless of whether he or she is 
completely extracted or expelled from her mother and breathes, 
regardless of whether or not her lung development is believed to be, or 
is in fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival. The infant will be 
considered to be alive if she has a beating heart, a pulsation of the 
umbilical cord, or definite movement of the voluntary muscles, 
regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless 
of whether the baby was born as a result of natural or induced labor, 
Caesarean section, or induced abortion. I believe we must pass this 
bill to protect the lives of the unborn and prematurely born.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act. In 2000 this legislation passed the House 
overwhelmingly, by a vote of 380-15. I am hopeful that today my 
colleagues will again vote to protect all infants who are born alive.
  It saddens me that we have come to the point where we need federal 
legislation to assert that an infant who is completely expelled or 
extracted from her mother and who is alive is a person under the law. I 
strongly believe that the unborn should have the same protection under 
the law, but unfortunately not all of my colleagues agree. Many of you, 
however, agree that a baby who is born alive is a person and should not 
be killed or left to die.
  Many states have approved the practice of ``live-birth abortions.'' 
Infants born alive as a result of an unsuccessful abortion are killed 
or left to die, some babies are partially born only to be killed, and 
in so-called ``therapeutic abortions'' physicians use drugs to induce 
premature labor and deliver children still alive and then simply allow 
them to die. According to nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, 
Illinois, physicians have used the ``therapeutic abortion'' procedure 
on infants with non-fatal deformities, such as spina bifida and Down 
Syndrome. Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with 
no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with 
appropriate medical assistance. Those who swear to save lives are 
instead leaving living, breathing, kicking, screaming babies to slowly 
die on their own.
  A registered nurse from Illinois testified before Congress that she 
witnessed pregnant mothers being prematurely induced and delivering 
living premature infants that were then left to die without any medical 
attention. The hospital where this occurred defended its actions by 
saying that the newborns were intended for abortion. There is no 
defense for leaving innocent babies to die.
  As a father of three beautiful children and a strong defender of 
human life, I am embarrassed that we live in a country where babies are 
abandoned and left to die. I urge you to vote in favor of this 
important legislation so that all the beautiful children who come into 
this world are treated as the human beings they are.
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2175. Every infant deserves to be fully entitled to all 
protections of our laws, no matter the likelihood of long-term 
survival. This legislation will ensure that the deplorable practice of 
infanticide will never occur again in this country.
  We have many serious issues to tackle here in Washington, few as 
important as the right to life. I am pleased to see that this issue is 
no longer on the backburner. It is reassuring that we in the House are 
making strides toward legislation that will reduce abortion rates here 
and abroad.
  Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, countless victims have 
paid the ultimate price. The landscape of American society changed with 
the Roe vs. Wade decision, which has resulted in societal corruption 
and a moral decline in our nation.
  Life is a fundamental human right. We must preserve the sanctity of 
this right and we must not rest until its place in the moral fabric of 
our nation is restored. The unborn child has no voice and cannot 
protect itself. It is our responsibility to ensure their voices are 
heard and their right to life is protected.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2175 and take a stand 
for what we know to be ethically decent.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor to the legislation 
before us, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive 
Infants Protection Act.
  While it has long been accepted as legal principle that infants born 
alive are entitled to the protection of law, recent court decisions 
have cut back this fundamental right. The purpose of this legislation 
is to firmly establish under law that an infant who is completely 
expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive, is 
considered a person for purposes of federal law. This recognition takes 
effect upon birth, irrespective of whether the baby survived an 
attempted abortion.
  This legislation will make illegal ``live-birth'' abortions, a 
practice so barbaric in nature and tragic in outcome that it is almost 
inconceivable that they occur. Unfortunately, testimony received by the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution indicates that in some jurisdictions, 
once a child is marked for abortion, it may become irrelevant whether 
that child emerges from the mother's womb as a live baby. In other 
words, some live-born premature infants may be treated as a nonentity, 
and allowed to die.
  I thank my friend from Ohio, Congressman Chabot, for introducing this 
vital piece of legislation, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to 
cast an ``aye'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2175, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and I am a proud cosponsor 
of this bill.
  This legislation is long overdue. For too long the youngest and most 
vulnerable of children have not been protected. This bill corrects this 
and brings protection to these children. It ensures that all children 
who are born alive are to be considered a human being.
  This bill would grant protection from being killed to all babies that 
show signs of life such as a heartbeat, breathing or muscle movement 
once they are outside the mother's womb.
  I commend the Chairman for bringing this bill to the floor today, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage. It is critical that 
we value all human life and this bill moves us in that direction.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2175.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H797]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________