[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5346-H5352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4965, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN 
                              ACT OF 2002

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 498 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 498

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4965) to prohibit the 
     procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
closed rule for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2002. H.R. 4965 would 
ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary 
to save the mother's life. As an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, I am pleased to see the legislation reach the floor of the 
House. I also believe that President Bush deserves the opportunity to 
put an end to this horrific act of human violence by signing this 
legislation into law.
  I must tell my colleagues, as a mother and a grandmother, it is still 
astonishing to me today that this is even remotely legal in America, 
but it is, and as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it is 
practiced all too often in this country. The vast majority of partial-
birth abortions are performed on

[[Page H5347]]

healthy babies and healthy mothers. Although language banning this 
procedure has been struck down in the past by the Supreme Court, this 
new legislation has been tailored to address the Court's concerns. The 
five-Justice majority in Stenberg vs. Carhart thought that Nebraska's 
definition of partial-birth abortion was vague and could be construed 
to cover not only abortions in which the baby is mostly delivered alive 
before being killed but also the more common dilation and evacuation, 
D&E, method.
  H.R. 4965 defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which the 
person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally 
delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first 
presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, 
or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk 
past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of 
performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially 
delivered living fetus.
  The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the 
Court will not reject it, it also draws attention to the violence of 
partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be.
  I am pleased that we are bringing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 2002 to the floor again. We have changed the bill, adding findings 
of fact to overcome constitutional barriers, and I am confident that it 
will survive judicial review.
  The American people, Mr. Speaker, want this bill in overwhelming 
numbers, believing in their hearts that we are better than this. We are 
a better people. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are about to begin our annual debate 
on a procedure that is not really recognized by the medical profession, 
which is totally unconstitutional, and would not go anywhere. The 
Supreme Court just recently said again that all the laws that they have 
had brought before them, and particularly the one on Nebraska, were 
unconstitutional. Given that, it is very tempting for us on our side to 
talk about the things that American people are concerned about. Their 
pensions, their jobs, corporate responsibility, accounting measures, 
the regulation that we can try to do to make things better for us, 
creation of jobs, education, health care, prescription drugs. But, no, 
we are going to spend 3 hours on this issue right here which will not 
be taken up by the Senate and which is unconstitutional and, frankly, 
we should not be messing with it. It really is a hoax on the public and 
I am sorry to be a part of it.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I certainly oppose the closed rule. They have shut 
out all meaningful debate on this. Anybody who had a right to talk 
about this on the other side was totally ignored, given no opportunity. 
No amendment will be allowed. You heard me correctly; no amendment to 
protect the lives of women will be allowed. For a bill that impacts so 
fundamentally the life of women, this is unconscionable and wholly 
unsurprising, given the contempt shown in this House for measures that 
impact our sisters and our daughters.

  We have been given 2 hours of general debate on this issue, and I 
would not be at all surprised if that is more time, given the nature of 
the rule, than we give to the national security issue this afternoon on 
homeland security.
  Mr. Speaker, election season is upon us. In the face of a crumbling 
stock market, an exploding deficit, and uncertain war on terrorism at 
home and around the globe, of this we can be sure: Congress will use 
the floor of the House of Representatives to push propaganda 
restricting a woman's right to choose. Direct mail pieces distorting 
this issue will hit the streets as soon as the vote is completed, just 
in time for the August recess. This vote before us is pure politics. 
The measure is cynical, it is unconstitutional, and it demeans this 
institution and those who serve in it.
  On its face, H.R. 4965 suffers from the same two flaws that led the 
Supreme Court to declare a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional: It 
fails to include an exception to protect maternal health, and it places 
an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion prior to 
viability by banning the most common second trimester abortion 
procedure.
  Fifteen pages of congressional findings do nothing to remedy this 
unconstitutionally flawed bill. In fact, the case law is clear. The 
Supreme Court articulated the three principles that govern abortion 
laws: One, a woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy 
prior to viability. That is the law of the land. Two, the State cannot 
impose an undue burden on the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. 
And, third, after viability, a State may regulate abortion except where 
it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation 
of the life or health of the mother.
  How strange it is that we do not really care about the life or the 
health of the mother. The measure before us today does not include an 
exception to protect the health of the woman, and certainly poses an 
undue burden on her.
  Moreover, and very importantly, this bill will turn doctors into 
criminals and put them in jail for performing a safe medical procedure 
which, in their best judgment, is the best way to protect a woman's 
right to having further children. The civil sanctions and criminal 
remedies, along with previous references by legislative proponents to 
medical professionals as assassins, exterminators, and murderers are 
part of a design to intimidate medical professionals from performing 
abortions generally.
  In the context of abortion clinic demonstrations and bombings, it is 
clear that many in the movement have an agenda of banning all 
abortions. The measure before us today is clearly a part of this 
ongoing effort. Criminal sanctions for doctors would chill any medical 
professional from performing many of the most common procedures. Given 
the vague and the overbroad language of the bill, doctors can 
reasonably fear prosecution for using the safest and most common 
abortion methods, and they probably will not perform them. Who could 
blame them?
  I assure my colleagues that the primary concern of most physicians 
will not be protecting the health of the woman, but protecting their 
own professional life. For this reason, the American Medical 
Association does not support this bill. Indeed, they are not the only 
ones. The American Public Health Association, the American Nurses 
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for 
Reproductive Choice and Health, the American College of Nurse 
Practitioners, the American Medical School Student Association, the 
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Association of 
Schools of Public Health, Associations of Women Psychiatrists, National 
Asian Women's Health Organization, National Association of Nurse 
Practitioners and Reproductive Health, The National Black Women's 
Health Project, and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive 
Health.
  But the bill does not stop here. Not content to cause the woman great 
harm or put the doctor in jail, in one of its most egregious 
provisions, it allows the woman to be sued by her husband or parents if 
she receives this procedure. In essence, proponents of this measure 
want to give a husband the veto power over a woman's decision. The 
Supreme Court has expressly held this to be unconstitutional.
  Think about it for a moment. Are we really prepared to allow an 
abusive husband, or a husband who has abandoned his wife, to threaten 
his wife with a lawsuit if she obtained a procedure to protect her 
health and future fertility? Who do we think we are? The last time you 
were facing a life-or-death decision, do you want Congress with you in 
the emergency rooms? If, God forbid, you should find yourself in this 
terrible position, are you not going to allow the doctors to make a 
decision until your Member of Congress arrives because he or she will 
be the last word? Sitting down with your family, do you need Congress 
there to do it?

[[Page H5348]]

  Congress does not have the right or the expertise to make these 
decisions for the American people; and, indeed, in the history of the 
Congress of the United States, no medical procedure has ever been 
outlawed. We are literally practicing medicine without a license.
  It is unconscionable for this Congress to continually place its 
political agenda ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe and 
appropriate medical care. Just like any other patient, a woman deserves 
to receive the best care based on the circumstances of her particular 
situation. As a Member of Congress, a mother of three daughters, and a 
long-time advocate of women's health, I strongly believe that the 
health of American women matters, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this rule and no on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, during the Stenberg v. Carhart case, Supreme Court 
Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the partial-birth abortion 
method when he said the following, and I apologize for the graphic 
nature of the quote, but this is the reality of what a partial-birth 
abortion act is. He says: ``After dilating the cervix, the doctor will 
grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of its uterus 
into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the 
largest part of the body. The head will be held inside the uterus by 
the cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly 
out of the woman's body and just a few inches from a completed birth, 
the doctor uses an instrument, such as a pair of scissors, to tear or 
perforate the skull. The doctor will then either crush the skull or 
will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents 
from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus's head, and pull the fetus 
from the uterus.''

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, this terrible act, known as partial-birth abortion, is 
what we are urging our colleagues to ban today.
  As noted in H.R. 4965, congressional findings further signal that 
partial-birth abortion is not medically indicated to preserve the 
health of the mother; and it is in fact unrecognized as a valid 
abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community.
  To quote the American Medical Association: ``The partial delivery of 
a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is 
ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians.''
  Furthermore, the AMA could not find any identified circumstance in 
which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the deceptive, pro-abortion lobby would 
like us to believe, partial-birth abortions involve killing almost 
fully delivered babies from the later stages of pregnancy, and not only 
in cases of fetal disorders or maternal distress. Contrary to the lies 
of the pro-abortion campaign, this is not a rare act that is only 
performed in extraordinary circumstances. In fact, most are performed 
for strictly elective reasons, and I quote abortionist Martin Haskell, 
who reported to the American Medical News, ``most of my abortions are 
elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 
percent are performed for genetic reasons, and the other 80 percent are 
purely elective.''
  But the worst tragedy of all is that partial-birth abortions are 
currently legal. This legislative body has twice approved to ban this 
atrocious act, only to have it vetoed twice by former President Bill 
Clinton. Today we have another historic opportunity to help stop this 
abhorrent act of killing the innocent unborn. I urge Members to take 
action and vote in favor of H.R. 4965.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today on this serious and most sensitive issue, the 
Republican leadership has turned the people's House into nothing more 
than a poser's House, posing for holy pictures, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have us say. The world's greatest 
deliberative body will not engage in democratic debate today. It will 
engage in a contrived, cynical charade.
  In 1994 after the GOP majority captured the House, Gerald Solomon, 
the former Republican chairman of the Committee on Rules stated, ``The 
guiding principles will be openness and fairness.'' He was referring to 
the guiding principles of the Committee on Rules. He went on to say, 
``The Rules Committee will no longer rig the procedure to contrive a 
predetermined outcome.'' ``From now on,'' Mr. Solomon went on, ``the 
Rules Committee will clear the stage for debate, and let the House work 
its will.''
  I do not know how genuine was Mr. Solomon's conviction when he made 
those comments, but I presume that they were sincere. But the practice 
has been the opposite. Today's debate will not be open. It will not be 
fair. And it will not be a serious attempt to legislate. The rule 
ensures a rigged procedure to contrive a predetermined outcome, the 
very process the Republican Party derided when it regained the 
majority.
  If the Republican leadership was really committed to fair and open 
debate, it would permit the Members to vote on the bipartisan Late Term 
Abortion Restriction Act which I and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood), my Republican colleague, introduced last year and a 
number of years previous to that.
  But the Committee on Rules has denied us that opportunity four times 
since 1995. Let Members be clear, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
will not prevent a single abortion. Let me repeat that. The bill before 
us and on this floor reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary 
will not prevent a single abortion. Not one.
  And the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who just spoke, 
testified to that fact when she said this procedure was not necessary 
and medical experts have said there are other methods to terminate the 
pregnancy. In other words, the issue here in this bill that is proposed 
by the Republican majority is not about preventing abortion, it is 
about a procedure.
  I have asked those who are for this bill if this procedure were worse 
than others that are used to terminate a pregnancy. Is there anyone 
here who doubts the answer to that question is a clear and resounding 
``no.''
  The bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I 
introduced and which we asked to have made in order would have 
precluded all post-viability abortions because I believe the majority 
of us in this House believe that postviability abortion ought not to be 
by choice, but we do what the Supreme Court mandates we do and in my 
opinion is appropriate to do, and that is to provide for an exception 
so that the life of the mother might be saved if in the medical 
judgment such a procedure is necessary to accomplish that objective.
  Furthermore, as the Supreme Court requires, and in my opinion is 
appropriate, it provides that if the mother's health will be put at 
risk, the medical procedure can be affected, but only in those 
instances. Otherwise late-term abortion, postviability abortion, would 
be precluded. The partial-birth abortion bill is sometimes I think by a 
sloppy press referred to as a late-term abortion. It has nothing to do 
with late term because the process can be used at any point in the 
pregnancy.
  In fact, this bill would ban a rare medical procedure reserved for 
the most tragic of circumstances. In contrast, our bill will preclude 
all late-term abortions. Members may ask why is this not made in order? 
Why are they afraid to have us debate it? They can oppose it and say 
they do not agree with the exceptions. They can say the Supreme Court 
is wrong. But why preclude the opportunity in the people's House to 
adopt an amendment which reflects the law in 43 States of the United 
States of America?
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this rule. What a shame that the 
majority fears open debate on this issue.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 4965, the Partial-

[[Page H5349]]

Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. This rule will allow adequate time for 
debate on this measure in addition to a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions, which will allow the House to work its will on 
this bill.
  Today I will spare the House the horrible details of partial-birth 
abortion, for I am certain that many of my colleagues are all too 
familiar with the gruesome reality of this deadly procedure. I am also 
well aware of the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart and 
the attempts by opponents of this bill to use that 5-4 decision as a 
safety net for their pro-abortion agenda.
  Opponents of this measure will tell us that H.R. 4965 is 
unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's Carhart decision. They 
will tell us we have no right to legislate a ban on this horrible 
practice because the Supreme Court says we cannot. I find that argument 
ironic, considering 413 Members of this body voted to pass a child 
pornography bill last month after the Supreme Court told us in Ashcroft 
v. Free Speech Coalition that we could not. Although I certainly 
respect the Supreme Court exercising its article III duties, I believe 
the Congress has its own duty to create and pass laws that protect the 
people of this country.
  Before today, the House of Representatives had passed a ban on this 
procedure by veto-proof majorities in the last three Congresses. Why? 
Because an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this body, Members who 
represent the collective voice of the people of this country, believe 
that the line differentiating this practice and homicide is gray at 
best. How can any Member of the House turn to their constituents and 
tell them yes, I support a practice where the legal definition of 
murder and abortion are separated by mere inches? I, for one, cannot.
  As such, I support both this rule and the underlying measure. It is 
time we put an end to this procedure which has been historically 
opposed not only by an overwhelming majority of this body but by an 
overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. We will not 
relent on this issue. We will continue to fight for a ban on partial-
birth abortions, and I ask that Members join with us in prohibiting 
this abhorrent practice.
  In closing, let me say that when a Nation puts people in jail and 
fines them for destroying the potential life of an unborn loggerhead 
turtle or bald eagle, and then pays people for destroying the potential 
life of unborn babies, that Nation has lost its way.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, the Hoyer 
amendment was not eligible for a motion to recommit because it is out 
of scope and would require a waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this House has had many fine 
moments where it has stood up to correct the wrongs of this Nation. For 
me personally, I remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the 
Voter Rights Act of 1965, a life-changing experience for the community 
from which I come.
  Today this House steps away from that fine hour. Not because I do not 
agree with the underlying principles that we have a responsibility to 
appreciate and honor life, but I believe that when we engage in 
frivolous legislation, we have a very large explanation to make.
  The Stenberg case made a simple principle regarding this procedure, 
that a medical doctor can make a judgment in order to provide for the 
health of the mother. This has not been defined as an abortion. It has 
been defined as helping to save the life or the health of a mother. 
Over and over again we have said that decisions should be made between 
that mother's God, family, and physician. Yet this body now brings 
before us legislation that is denied an amendment that I offered, and 
many other Members offered, that would at least allow us to put into 
the bill that a procedure could be done, a medical judgment could be 
made, in order to save the life of the mother.
  We realize that Congress has in its past overridden the United States 
Supreme Court; but at the same time, the Supreme Court can come back 
and say it is unconstitutional. It is the highest law of the land, and 
so we can keep going back and forth and back and forth. Justice Thomas 
said himself, ``We know of no support for the proposition that if the 
constitutionality of a statute depends in part on the existence of 
certain facts, a court may not review Congress' judgment that the facts 
exist.'' That is the key.
  Again they ruled a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion, a label 
that has only been defined by this Congress, unconstitutional because 
it did not have a provision that allowed that physician to make a 
determination on the basis of the health of that mother.

                              {time}  1500

  We come again to talk about what our doctors do. We are not talking 
about criminals. We are talking about physicians who are being asked 
after many, many occasions for that mother to go and find a way to save 
the life of her unborn child. Yet when the decision has to be made to 
save her life and/or her health in order to have her procreate again, 
we put it on the floor of this House and make it a political decision.
  I know that many of us can offer our own personal stories. Many women 
testified and pleaded with us as we listened to their testimony over 
the years. They did not want to have this procedure. They tried to go 
anywhere that they could. But because of the determination, the medical 
judgment, that decision had to be made. Because of the health of that 
mother, that medical judgment had to be made.
  Can you imagine that this legislation then adds to the provisions, 
that they would then imprison and fine, make criminal the physician who 
had to do the decision or make the judgment based upon the Hippocratic 
oath in order to save the life and/or in this instance, rather, to do 
this without the governance of this particular legislation. In this 
instance, it would be if the physician made the judgment on the basis 
of saving the health of the mother.
  We can do better in this body. This is not a question of stopping 
abortions. It is not judged that. It is a medical procedure. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Let me thank my colleague from the Committee on Rules for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I rise in support of the ban and this rule. As 
most of you know, I never come to the floor to speak on an abortion-
related issue. Under normal circumstances, I do not believe this is an 
issue or the business of government. It is a woman's business, a 
medical business, a family business, a moral business. But it is not 
government's business. And that also means no taxpayer money for 
abortions. I make an exception to this bill today, because it involves 
a medical procedure that the American Medical Association itself says 
is unnecessary and it is unnecessarily cruel.
  We just heard from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) 
how cruel and how painful this procedure is. This procedure is used 
primarily in late-term abortions, when there is absolutely no question 
about the viability of the fetus. It involves the partial delivery of 
what clearly is a viable fetus, and that, by any standard, should 
amount to murder.
  Regardless of anyone's position on the general issue of abortion 
rights, I find it incredible that anyone could condone such an 
abhorrent procedure, particularly one that is by no means an exclusive 
medical remedy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I urge them to support 
the ban as most Americans do. There is no reason for this procedure, 
there are other options than this procedure, and I think we need to 
stand up and recognize the life of the unborn deserves merit and 
consideration on this floor today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should also stand up for 
the rights of women and their right to live.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).

[[Page H5350]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but 
I believe, like many Americans, that when the health of the mother is 
at risk, that is a decision that should be made by a woman and her 
doctor and not by a bunch of politicians in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that this rule is shameful and this bill 
is a false promise. I do find it interesting that those supporting this 
rule and this bill keep quoting the American Medical Association. I do 
not know if they just did not want to hear it or if they refuse to 
accept it. The organization they are quoting opposes this legislation.
  Why do I say this rule is shameful? First, it ensures that when this 
bill passes today, were it then to become law, no bill will ever have 
the impact of law or save one baby because the Supreme Court has made 
it absolutely clear, not just once but on five different occasions in 
their 2000 decision, that you must have a health exemption when the 
mother's health is at risk.
  So maybe Ralph Reed was right when he said this is the political 
silver bullet, the partial-birth abortion bill, but what a tragedy.
  The proponents of this bill and this rule are forcing a false promise 
upon the American people, a promise that will not help one child. This 
rule is shameful because it denies Members of this House a vote of 
conscience. I respect your conscience. I respect your right to express 
your conscience. You have no right on an issue of this magnitude, of 
such deep conscience for so many Members, no one in this House has that 
right to deny us the right to a vote, to a vote for an amendment that 
the Supreme Court would then interpret is making this bill 
constitutional.
  I tried to offer an amendment to the Committee on Rules, it was not 
really radical, it was a bill I helped pass in 1987 in Texas to outlaw 
not one late-term abortion procedure which is not going to save a 
single baby, it would outlaw all late-term abortion procedures but with 
a health exception. For 15 years, the constitutionality of that Texas 
law has not been challenged. I would note that during the time that 
President Bush was then Governor of Texas, there was no effective 
effort or to my knowledge even serious effort made to change that bill. 
It was constitutional and it worked.
  Supreme Court Justice O'Connor has made it very clear, in case 
anybody does not understand English, that if you do not have a health 
exemption in this bill, it will not ever have the impact of being law. 
Let me quote her from the court case of June 28 of 2000:
  ``First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent because it lacks an 
exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to 
preserve the health of the mother.''
  In case that is not clear enough for the supporters of this rule and 
this unconstitutional bill, she then goes on to outline all that a 
legislative body has to do to make such a bill constitutional. Just add 
the words ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for 
the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' That would be 
the circumstance for an exception.
  The people who should be upset at this bill should be pro-life 
Americans all across this country who have been deluded by this 
unconstitutional bill into thinking it is going to save one child. Had 
this rule allowed us to vote on a constitutionally acceptable amendment 
for a health exception, we actually could do some good. What a shame.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to remind the House that the minority does have a 
motion to recommit on every bill that we do. Mr. Solomon had said that 
he wanted to be sure that the minority always had a motion to recommit. 
I say that just for the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4965, the partial-birth abortion ban, and its rule as well. Partial-
birth abortion is a cruel and painful procedure. In this method the 
child is partially delivered. Only the baby's head is inside the 
mother's body. At this point the doctor inserts scissors into the 
baby's skull and removes the baby's brains with suction.
  It is a medical fact that unborn infants can feel the pain of 
scissors puncturing their skull. In fact, the baby's perception of pain 
is even more intense at this early stage of life. A practice such as 
this has no place in the medical field. Even the physician credited 
with developing this procedure agrees that no medical situation exists 
to warrant the use of partial-birth abortion.
  Aside from being cruel to the infant, it poses a serious health risk 
for the mother, including complications with future pregnancies and 
even death. We must protect these precious lives, these precious 
infants, who are only moments away from their first breath.
  I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting to ban partial-birth 
abortion and to support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us will not prohibit any abortions. It 
prohibits a procedure. The abortion will still take place using another 
procedure, and I will not inflame the debate by describing in detail 
the alternative procedures that may be used. But I will point out that 
Nebraska had a law banning this procedure, the so-called partial-birth 
abortion. Nearly 2 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held in 
Stenberg v. Carhart that the law was unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court said many times in its majority opinion and other 
times in concurring opinions that in order to make the partial-birth 
abortion ban constitutional, the law must contain a health exception to 
allow the procedure when it is necessary, in appropriate medical 
judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. 
That is what five Supreme Court justices said is necessary to make the 
bill constitutional. All five of those justices are still on the 
Supreme Court.
  In the Stenberg case, the court said, ``The question before us is 
whether Nebraska's statute making criminal the performance of a 
partial-birth abortion violates the Constitution as interpreted by 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. We conclude that it does 
for at least two independent reasons.'' They said the first reason was 
that the law lacks an exception for the preservation of the health of 
the mother. The Stenberg court reminded us what a long line of cases 
has held, that, quote, subsequent to viability, the State in promoting 
its interest in the potentiality of human life may if it chooses 
regulate, and even proscribe abortion, except, and they put this in 
italics, when it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the 
preservation of the life or health of the mother, unquote.
  It goes on to say in quotes, in case we did not understand it in 
italics, that the governing standard requires an exception--listen up--
where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the 
preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  The court continues talking about the health exception by saying, 
quote, Justice Thomas said that the cases just cited limit the 
principle to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to 
health. The court says, ``He is wrong. The cases cited, reaffirmed in 
Casey, recognize that a State cannot subject women's health to 
significant health risks both in that context, and also where State 
regulations force women to use riskier methods of abortion. Our cases 
have repeatedly invalidated statutes that, in the process of regulating 
the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks.
  They make clear that a risk to a woman's health is the same whether 
it happens to arise from regulating a particular method of abortion or 
from barring abortion entirely.''
  Finally, the court says, ``Nebraska has not convinced us that a 
health exception is never medically necessary to preserve the health of 
the mother.'' It continues by saying, ``A statute that altogether 
forbids the partial-birth abortion creates a significant health risk. 
The statute consequently must contain a health exception.''
  And in case we did not get it, the court said again, ``By no means 
must a State grant physicians unfettered discretion in their selection 
of a method of abortion but where substantial medical authority 
supports the proposition

[[Page H5351]]

that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger the woman's 
health, Casey requires the statute to include a health exception when 
the procedure is''--listen up--``necessary, in appropriate medical 
judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. 
Requiring such an exception in this case is no departure from Casey, 
but simply a straightforward application of its holding.''
  Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of 
abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme 
Court, in one decision, said at least five times that a health 
exception must be included for the statute to be constitutional. 
Furthermore, they put ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for 
the preservation of the life or health of the mother'' in italics and 
quotation marks.
  This rule that we are considering proposes a bill without a health 
exception. It prohibits amendments that would create a health 
exception. The court has made it clear that the health exception is 
required and, therefore, any bill that passes without the health 
exception will be found unconstitutional. Thus, this rule which does 
not allow the required health exception should be defeated.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time and for her tremendous leadership on this issue and so 
many others.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a cruel ploy to prevent 
women from obtaining the safest and best medical care from their 
doctors. What is more, it is unconstitutional.
  This bill is no different from the Nebraska law struck down by the 
Supreme Court 2 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart. It has the same flaws 
and the same dangers. Like the Nebraska law, this bill's broad language 
bans the safest and most common form of abortion used in second 
trimester, posing an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. It has 
no exception for preserving a woman's health. It ties the hands of 
medical practitioners, condemning women to less safe procedures that 
may put their lives at risk.
  Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion was very clear that government ``may 
promote, but not endanger, a woman's health when it regulates the 
methods of abortion.'' The decision went on to say, ``Where a 
significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with 
it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons 
supporting that view, neither Congress nor the States may ban the 
procedure.''
  The Supreme Court has said neither Congress nor the States may ban 
the procedure, so if we already know that this bill is 
unconstitutional, then why are we here? I believe it is to give the 
anti-choice forces one more chance to spread the lie that this is about 
a particular procedure at a particular phase of pregnancy.
  So let us set the record straight. This ban covers many procedures 
and all phases of pregnancy. This is not about late-term abortions, 
this is not about the D&E procedure, this is about outlawing choice, 
pure and simple. It is an extreme measure that sacrifices women's 
health to further an ideological agenda that opposes choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
deceptive attempt to deny women access to choice. I urge a no vote on 
this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge this body to follow the 
words of Sandra Day O'Connor and the majority of the members of the 
Supreme Court that have already ruled that the bill before us is 
unconstitutional.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment that, once again, an 
unconstitutional measure which we recently did, too, that was passed by 
this House was to prohibit young women from crossing State lines in the 
United States. I have no idea who is going to police that or whether we 
are going to put borders up at every State to make sure people do not 
cross it ``illegally,'' according to the Congress. Obviously that is 
not going to ever become law. There is no way we can keep American 
citizens from going from one State to another.
  Once again we try this, which is not a serious attempt to do much 
except make points. I urge a no vote on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote on this rule will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 
5120 and a 5-minute vote on House Concurrent Resolution 188.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 177, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               YEAS--248

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     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
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne

[[Page H5352]]


     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Armey
     Bonior
     Condit
     Knollenberg
     Northup
     Pryce (OH)
     Stearns
     Traficant
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1542

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, DeFAZIO, KLECZKA, GILMAN, and SIMMONS, 
and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PAUL and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________