[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1096-E1097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTRODUCTION OF THE ``PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2002''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE CHABOT

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 19, 2002

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of a bi-partisan coalition, 
I have introduced the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002.''
  Partial-birth abortion is the termination of the life of a living 
baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the womb. 
The procedure is violent. It is gruesome. It is infanticide.
  The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002'' would ban this 
dangerous procedure in which a physician delivers an unborn child's 
body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of 
the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains 
out before completing delivery of the dead infant. The great majority 
of these abortions are performed on unborn infants from the 20th to the 
26th week of pregnancy and more often than not on the healthy babies of 
healthy mothers. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2002'' is similar 
to the previous bans on partial-birth abortion approved by the House in 
that an abortionist who violates the ban will be subject to fines or a 
maximum of two years imprisonment, or both; a civil cause of action is 
established for damages against an abortionist who violates the ban; 
and a doctor cannot be prosecuted under the ban if the abortion was 
necessary to save the life of a mother.
  A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of 
performing a partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane 
procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. 
Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical 
community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other 
abortion

[[Page E1097]]

procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that 
is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in 
fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some 
circumstances, their lives. It is also a medical fact that the unborn 
infants aborted in this manner are alive until the end of the procedure 
and fully experience the pain associated with the procedure. As a 
result, at least 27 states banned the procedure, as did the United 
States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 
105th, and 106th Congresses. Unfortunately, the two federal bans that 
reached President Clinton's desk were promptly vetoed. Although the 
House of Representatives overrode both Presidential vetoes, the Senate 
failed to do so.
  Then, two years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States Supreme 
Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban as an ``undue 
burden'' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an 
exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the 
``health'' of the mother. Thus the Court essentially rendered null and 
void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of at 
least 27 state legislatures that this gruesome, inhumane, and dangerous 
procedure should be banned.
  The Stenberg Court based its conclusion ``that significant medical 
authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial 
birth abortion] would be the safest procedure'' on the trial court's 
factual findings regarding the relative health and safety benefits of 
partial-birth abortions--findings which were highly disputed. Yet, 
because of the highly deferential ``clearly erroneous'' standard of 
appellate review applied to lower court factual findings, the Stenberg 
Court was required to accept these questionable trial court findings.
  Those factual findings are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight 
of authority regarding the safety and medical necessity of the partial-
birth abortion procedure--including evidence received during extensive 
legislative hearings during the 104th and 105th Congresses--which 
indicates that a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to 
preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's 
health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. In fact, a 
prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion 
is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' and that it has ``never been 
subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice 
development.'' Thus, there exists substantial record evidence upon 
which Congress may conclude that the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 2002'' should not contain a so-called ``health'' exception, because 
to do so would place the health of the very women the exception seeks 
to serve in jeopardy by allowing a medically unproven and dangerous 
procedure to go unregulated.
  Although the Supreme Court in Stenberg was obligated to accept the 
district court's findings regarding the relative health and safety 
benefits of a partial-birth abortion due to the applicable standard of 
appellate review, Congress possesses an independent constitutional 
authority upon which it may reach findings of fact that contradict 
those of the trial court. Under well-settled Supreme Court 
jurisprudence, these congressional findings will be entitled to great 
deference by the federal judiciary in ruling on the constitutionality 
of a partial-birth abortion ban. Thus, the first section of the 
``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002'' contains Congress's factual 
findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during 
congressional hearings, a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to 
preserve the health of a woman.
  The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002'' does not question the 
Supreme Court's authority to interpret Roe v. Wade and Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey. Rather, it challenges the factual conclusion that 
a partial-birth abortion may, in some circumstances, be the safest 
abortion procedure for some women. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 2002'' also responds to the Stenberg Court's second holding, that 
Nebraska's law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions 
because its definition of a ``partial-birth abortion'' could be 
construed to ban not only partial-birth abortions (also known as ``D & 
X'' abortions), but also the most common second trimester abortion 
procedure, dilation and evacuation or ``D & E.'' The ``Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2002'' includes a new definition of a partial-birth 
abortion that clearly and precisely confines the prohibited procedure 
to a D & X abortion.
  Despite overwhelming support from the public, past efforts to ban 
partial-birth abortion were blocked by President Clinton. Now, we have 
a President who is equally committed to the sanctity of life, a 
President who has promised to stand with Congress in its efforts to ban 
this barbaric and dangerous procedure. It is time for Congress to end 
the national tragedy of partial-birth abortion and protect the lives of 
these helpless, defenseless, little babies.

                          ____________________