[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5352-H5374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2002

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 498

[[Page H5353]]

adopted earlier today, I call up the bill (H.R. 4965) to prohibit the 
procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the H.R. 4965 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4965

       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 ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the 
     practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion 
     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--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never 
     medically necessary and should be prohibited.
       (2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is 
     embraced by the medical community, particularly among 
     physicians who routinely perform other abortion 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. 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.
       (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the 
     United States Supreme Court opined ``that significant medical 
     authority supports the proposition that in some 
     circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest 
     procedure'' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an 
     abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's 
     ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it 
     placed 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.
       (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the 
     Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-
     birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as 
     safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative 
     abortion procedures.
       (5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the 
     Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth 
     abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional 
     hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses 
     significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure 
     is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.
       (6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial 
     court record supporting the district court's findings, the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the 
     Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's 
     factual findings because, under the applicable standard of 
     appellate review, they were not ``clearly erroneous''. A 
     finding of fact is clearly erroneous ``when although there is 
     evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 
     evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 
     mistake has been committed''. Anderson v. City of Bessemer 
     City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this 
     standard, ``if the district court's account of the evidence 
     is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, 
     the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced 
     that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have 
     weighed the evidence differently''. Id. at 574.
       (7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was 
     required to accept the very questionable findings issued by 
     the district court judge--the effect of which was to render 
     null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy 
     determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 
     State legislatures.
       (8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court 
     jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to 
     accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was 
     bound to accept in Stenberg under the ``clearly erroneous'' 
     standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to 
     reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme 
     Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based 
     upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a 
     legitimate interest that is within the scope of the 
     Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon 
     substantial evidence.
       (9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the 
     Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of 
     Congressional factual findings when it addressed the 
     constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 
     1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 
     4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining 
     nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,'' the Court 
     stated that ``[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made 
     this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting 
     considerations. . . . It is not for us to review the 
     congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that 
     we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might 
     resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a 
     basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question 
     in this case.''. Id. at 653.
       (10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress's 
     factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld 
     the ``bail-out'' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
     (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that ``congressional fact finding, 
     to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens 
     the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the 
     Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are 
     discriminatory in purpose''. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 
     472 F. Supp. 221 (D. D. Col. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, 
     Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980).
       (11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to 
     congressional factual findings in reviewing the 
     constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable 
     Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. 
     See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal 
     Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and 
     Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications 
     Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the 
     Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent 
     mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local 
     broadcast television would be ``seriously jeopardized''. The 
     Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, ``Congress 
     is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and 
     evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as 
     complex and dynamic as that presented here''. 512 U.S. at 
     665-66. Although the Court recognized that ``the deference 
     afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our 
     independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of 
     constitutional law,' '' its ``obligation to exercise 
     independent judgment when First Amendment rights are 
     implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, 
     or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. 
     Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, 
     Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial 
     evidence.'' Id. at 666.
       (12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 
     ``must-carry'' provisions based upon Congress' findings, 
     stating the Court's ``sole obligation is `to assure that, in 
     formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable 
     inferences based on substantial evidence.' '' 520 U.S. at 
     195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that 
     ``[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the 
     institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to 
     ``amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data'' bearing upon' 
     legislative questions,'' id. at 195, and added that it 
     ``owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of 
     deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the 
     legislative power.'' Id. at 196.
       (13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which 
     Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-
     birth abortion is not required to contain a ``health'' 
     exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth 
     abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed 
     by extensive hearings held during the 104th and 105th 
     Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 
     104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect 
     the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-
     birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies 
     outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, 
     be banned.
       (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive 
     legislative hearings during the 104th and 105th Congresses, 
     Congress finds and declares that:
       (A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the 
     health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks 
     include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of 
     suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical 
     dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to 
     successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an 
     increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid 
     embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting 
     the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, 
     according to a leading obstetrics textbook, ``there are very 
     few, if any, indications for . . .  other than for delivery 
     of a second twin''; and a risk of lacerations and secondary 
     hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp 
     instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he 
     or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could 
     result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of 
     shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.
       (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-
     birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion 
     procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions 
     have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been 
     conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to 
     other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no 
     articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish 
     that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to 
     established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more 
     commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no 
     medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that

[[Page H5354]]

     include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their 
     curriculum.
       (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that 
     partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical 
     practice,'' that it has ``never been subject to even a 
     minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,'' 
     that ``the relative advantages and disadvantages of the 
     procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,'' and 
     that ``there is no consensus among obstetricians about its 
     use''. The association has further noted that partial-birth 
     abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and 
     the public, is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``is never the only 
     appropriate procedure''.
       (D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the 
     experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single 
     circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was 
     necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
       (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-
     birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never 
     encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was 
     medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, 
     is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a 
     woman.
       (F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will 
     therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women 
     seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
       (G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and 
     the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-
     birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, 
     such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly 
     distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the 
     integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for 
     human life.
       (H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned 
     Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental 
     interest in protecting the life of a child during the 
     delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a 
     partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth 
     process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe 
     when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas 
     parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a 
     child ``in a state of being born and before actual birth,'' 
     was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the 
     child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is 
     completely born is a full, legal person entitled to 
     constitutional protections afforded a ``person'' under the 
     United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve 
     the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere 
     inches away from, becoming a ``person''. Thus, the government 
     has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the 
     partially-born child.
       (I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical 
     community, where a prominent medical association has 
     recognized that partial-birth abortions are ``ethically 
     different from other destructive abortion techniques because 
     the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is 
     killed outside of the womb''. According to this medical 
     association, the `` `partial birth' gives the fetus an 
     autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to 
     choose treatments for her own body''.
       (J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, 
     legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and 
     promote life, as the physician acts directly against the 
     physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, 
     all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. 
     Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and 
     techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living 
     children--obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of 
     the mother and the child--and instead uses those techniques 
     to end the life of the partially-born child.
       (K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that 
     purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has 
     begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines 
     the public's perception of the appropriate role of a 
     physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process 
     during which life is brought into the world, in order to 
     destroy a partially-born child.
       (L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth 
     abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the 
     killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for 
     infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition 
     of the procedure.
       (M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth 
     abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a 
     medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can 
     feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their 
     perception of this pain is even more intense than that of 
     newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same 
     stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the 
     child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing 
     his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
       (N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane 
     procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen 
     society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all 
     vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly 
     difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a 
     compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to 
     prohibit this inhumane procedure.
       (O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth 
     abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health 
     of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion 
     procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses 
     additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between 
     abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born 
     child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the 
     physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This 
     subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
     physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
     condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. 
     This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion 
     in which--
       ``(A) 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 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; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of 
     delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; 
     and
       ``(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or 
     osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and 
     surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such 
     activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the 
     State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any 
     individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally 
     authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who 
     nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, 
     shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...................................1531''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
498, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour.
  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 include extraneous material on H.R. 4965, the bill 
currently 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 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002, 
would prohibit the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion that 
unfortunately we are now all too familiar

[[Page H5355]]

with. An abortionist who violates this ban will be subject to fines, a 
maximum of 2 years imprisonment, or both. This bill includes an 
exception for those situations in which a partial-birth abortion is 
deemed necessary to save the life of the mother.
  A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that partial-birth 
abortion is an unsafe and inhumane procedure that is never medically 
necessary and which should be prohibited. Contrary to the claims of 
partial-birth abortion advocates, this type of abortion remains an 
untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous procedure that has never 
been embraced by the medical profession.
  As a result, Congress has voted to ban partial-birth abortion during 
the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses, and at least 27 states enacted 
bans on the procedure. Unfortunately the two Federal bans that reached 
President Clinton's desk were promptly vetoed.
  In June 2000, the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth 
abortion ban, which was similar but not identical to bans previously 
passed by the Congress. The Court concluded that Nebraska's ban did not 
clearly distinguish the prohibited procedure from other more commonly 
performed second trimester abortion procedures. The Court also held, on 
the basis of the highly disputed factual findings of the district 
court, that the law was required to include an exception for partial-
birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
  This bill has a new definition of partial-birth abortion. It 
addresses the Court's first concern by clearly and unambiguously 
defining the prohibited procedure. It also addresses the Court's second 
objection to the Nebraska law by including extensive congressional 
findings based upon medical evidence received in a series of 
legislative hearings that, contrary to the factual findings of the 
district court in Stenberg, partial-birth abortion is never necessary, 
never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health, poses serious 
risks to a woman's health, and is in fact below the requisite standard 
of medical care.
  The bill's lack of a health exception is based upon Congress's 
factual determination that partial-birth abortion is a dangerous 
procedure that does not serve the health of any woman. The Supreme 
Court has a long history, particularly in the area of civil rights, of 
deferring to Congress's factual conclusions. In doing so, the Court has 
recognized that Congress's institutional structure makes it far better 
suited than the judiciary to assess facts upon which it will make 
policy determinations. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has stated, the Court 
must be ``particularly careful not to substitute its judgment of what 
is desirable for that of Congress or its own evaluation of evidence for 
a reasonable evaluation by the Legislative Branch.'' Thus in Katzenback 
v. Morgan, while addressing section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, the Court deferred to Congress's factual determination that 
section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining 
nondiscriminatory treatment in public.''
  Similarly, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, when reviewing the minority 
business enterprise provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 
1977, the Court repeatedly cited and deferred to the legislative record 
and factual conclusions of Congress to uphold the provisions as an 
appropriate exercise of congressional authority. Based upon the Supreme 
Court precedent and separation of powers principles, I am confident 
that H.R. 4965 will withstand judicial scrutiny.
  Mr. Speaker, it also is important for this body to understand that in 
addition to the health risk to women who undergo the partial-birth 
abortion procedure, it is particularly brutal and inhumane to the 
nearly-born. Virtually all of the infants upon whom this procedure is 
performed are alive and feel excruciating pain.
  A child upon whom a partial-birth abortion is being performed is not 
significantly affected by the medication administered to the mother 
during the performance of the procedure. As creditable testimony 
received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution confirms, current 
methods for providing maternal anesthesia during partial-birth 
abortions are unlikely to prevent the experience of pain and stress 
that the child will feel during the procedure. Thus, claims that a 
child is almost certain to be either dead or unconscious and near death 
prior to the commencement of the partial-birth procedure are 
unsubstantiated.
  H.R. 4965 enjoys overwhelming support from Members of both parties, 
precisely because of the barbaric nature of the procedure and the 
dangers it poses to women who undergo it. Additionally, the American 
Medical Association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 
either ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques 
because the fetus, normally 20 weeks or longer in gestation, is killed 
out of the woman. Thus, partial birth gives the fetus an autonomy which 
separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her 
own body.
  Implicitly approving such a brutal and unjustifiable procedure by 
choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to humanity of 
all vulnerable and innocent human life. Thus, Congress has a compelling 
interest in acting to prohibit this procedure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for managing the 
bill, and I would like to welcome everyone back to yet another debate 
since 1995 on partial-birth abortion. We have lost track of how many 
times this has come to the floor, been to the committee, been to the 
subcommittee, and is here again.
  I will spare my colleagues the list of issues, but in the last 2 
days, before we go on our summer recess, of legislation that is waiting 
by the American people to be dealt with, why and how this measure got 
to the floor is one of the great mysteries of the national legislative 
process, but we are here again, and so we have to go through this 
again.
  It does not matter to some that the great weight of medical opinion 
is against this legislation that would ban partial-birth abortion, 
which is, by the way, very rarely used, and that is why the American 
Medical Association is not in support of this legislation.
  It is also why the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists are opposed to the bill. It is also why the American 
Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the 
American Medical Women's Association, the California Medical 
Association, the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the 
American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American Medical Students 
Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the 
Association of Schools of Public Health, the Association of Women's 
Psychiatrists, the National Asian Women's Health Organization, the 
National Association of Nurse Practitioners and Reproductive Health, 
the National Black Women's Health Project, the National Latina 
Institute for Reproductive Health, and the Rhode Island Medical Society 
are all against this bill.
  They do not understand medicine or the procedures that are debated 
here? Maybe. They are inhumane or insensitive to their responsibilities 
as medical doctors? Maybe. But I doubt that seriously.
  This measure is now being brought during the 7th year for an infinite 
number of times and the result always comes out the same.
  It is important, because there is going to be maybe some debate on 
it. We went through this before, but the American Medical Association 
has stated that they are not in support of this bill. I have a letter 
here to that effect and would be happy to show it to anyone who is not 
convinced or needs more encouragement about this matter.
  It is important that we realize that there is one major reason that 
this bill is not supported by these medical associations, and that is 
that the measure contains no protection for the woman, the mother. 
There is no exception for the fact that this procedure may save the 
life of the mother.

                              {time}  1615

  There is no consideration about that in this legislation. And so, 
therefore, these medical institutions and associations cannot support 
this legislation,

[[Page H5356]]

and the legislators, for reasons known only to themselves that promote 
the bill, will not put this provision in the bill.
  Now, only last week when this bill came up in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin introduced an amendment to 
cure this defect that has been repeated by the Supreme Court every time 
this measure goes to the Supreme Court. It has been repeated by circuit 
courts wherever the cases have occurred; it has been repeated in State 
courts wherever it has occurred; that unless there is an exception to 
this ban for the safety and the health of the mother, this bill cannot 
stand muster. Even if it passes the House and the Senate, the Supreme 
Court still will tell us the same thing; that we must have an exception 
for the life and health and safety of the mother, or this provision is 
not valid.
  Now, is that so difficult to understand? It has been repeated for 
years. It has been stated in nonlegal, simple English, and yet the 
authors of this bill consistently refuse, as of last week they refused, 
as of today, if we could amend it, and we cannot, they would refuse. 
Even if we went to conference and we asked to put it in, I presume they 
would continue to refuse. Why, I cannot offer my colleagues any logical 
reasons.
  But, Mr. Speaker, since there is no chance of this ever becoming law, 
I wonder why, if my colleagues want it into law so badly, they do not 
accede to the existing court decisions that have never varied on 
protecting the mother's life in the event a partial-birth abortion 
would save an endangered mother's life. And so I urge once again that 
the majority of the Members of this body reject the measure that is 
before us.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I wish to respond to something the gentleman from Michigan 
said relative to a health exception and why a specific health exception 
is not in there.
  No matter how narrowly drafted a health exception might be, it gives 
the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial-
birth abortion might be performed, and abortionists have demonstrated 
that they can justify any abortion on this ground. Dr. Warren Hearn of 
Colorado, for example, the author of the Standard Textbook on Abortion 
Procedures, who also performs many third-trimester abortions, has 
stated, and I quote, ``I would certify that any pregnancy is a threat 
to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical 
health.'' It is unlikely, then, that a law that includes such an 
exception would ban a single partial-birth abortion.
  Partial-birth abortion, after all, is the termination of the life of 
a living baby just seconds before it takes its first breath outside the 
womb. This procedure is violent, it is gruesome, it is, in the words of 
one of the Senators from New York some years ago, a Democratic Senator, 
I might add, it is infanticide.
  Now, proponents of this procedure will tell a different story today. 
They want us to believe it is about politics or ideology. They will do 
anything to divert attention from the cold, hard facts about partial-
birth abortion. I would remind everyone that we have seen these same 
tactics for many years, and that the misinformation touted by the 
abortion lobby was exposed as blatant propaganda back in 1997.
  My colleagues might recall that the executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted that he ``lied 
through his teeth'' when he stated that partial-birth abortions were 
rarely performed. He went on to admit that the procedure is most often 
performed on healthy mothers who are about 5 months along in the 
pregnancy, and they are performed with healthy fetuses.
  So as we debate this compassionate bill today, I ask that my 
colleagues remember the truth. Partial-birth abortion remains an 
untested, unproven, and dangerous procedure that has never been 
embraced by the mainstream medical community.
  I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this legislation in a 
little more detail. Two years ago, in the Stenberg v. Carhart case, the 
United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth 
abortion ban, which was similar but not identical to bans passed by 
previous Congresses. To address the constitutional concerns raised by 
the majority in Stenberg, our legislation differs from previous 
proposals in two areas:
  First, the bill contains a new, more precise definition of the 
prohibited procedure that, as expert medical testimony received by the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution indicated, clearly distinguishes it 
from more commonly performed abortion procedures.
  Second, our legislation addresses the Stenberg majority's opinion 
that the Nebraska ban placed 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.
  The Stenberg court based its conclusions on the trial court's factual 
findings regarding the relative health and safety benefits of partial-
birth abortions, findings which were highly disputed. Under well-
settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not 
bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was 
bound to accept in Stenberg under the so-called clearly erroneous 
standard. Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in Turner Broadcasting 
System, Inc. v. Federal Communications System, the United States 
Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings, findings that 
the Supreme Court consistently relies upon and accords great deference, 
and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks 
to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the 
Constitution and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial 
evidence.
  The first section of our legislation contains Congress's extensive 
factual findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled 
during congressional hearings, partial-birth abortions pose serious 
risks to women's health. So the partial-birth abortion itself poses a 
serious medical risk on a woman's health. It is never medically 
indicated, and it is outside the standards of medical care in this 
country.
  In fact, the district court's factual findings in the Stenberg case 
are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority regarding 
the safety and medical necessity of partial-birth abortion. According 
to the American Medical Association, and I quote, ``There is no 
consensus among obstetricians about its use, and it has never been 
subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice 
development,'' and ``It is not in the medical textbooks.'' That is 
according to the American Medical Association.
  In addition, no controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have 
been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to 
demonstrate its efficacy compared to other abortion methods. 
Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed 
journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are safe or 
superior in any way to established abortion procedures.
  Leading proponents of partial-birth abortion also acknowledge it 
poses additional health risks because, among other things, the 
procedure requires a high degree of skill to pierce the infant's skill 
with a sharp instrument in a blind procedure. Dr. Warren Hearn, the 
author of the Standard Textbook on Abortion Procedures, who also 
performs many of these types of procedures, has testified that he ``had 
very serious reservations about this procedure, and it is definitely 
not the safest.''
  I would strongly encourage my colleagues in the House to no longer 
make available in this country this barbaric, inhumane practice of 
partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's 
presentation. Could he explain to me why over a dozen of the medical 
organizations and associations that I have cited have all come out 
against this measure? What is the gentleman's answer to their 
statements?
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5357]]

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, if I had time, I could list all the 
organizations in favor of this legislation. But just using the AMA, for 
example, they have sent us letters indicating they are opposed to this 
legislation, but what they do not like at this point is the fact a 
doctor could go to jail.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman, what about the other dozen organizations? Does the gentleman 
have any reason to think why they would be opposed to this legislation?
  Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, using the AMA 
again, for example, they do not like the fact that abortionists would 
have to go to jail if caught.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about the other dozen organizations outside 
the AMA that I named. Why are they opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to provide a long list of organizations 
that are in favor of this legislation. Be happy to trade lists with the 
gentleman. This is an inhumane, barbaric, brutal procedure which ought 
to be banned.
  Mr. CONYERS. That is an inadequate response.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to this bill. We have 
been through this debate often enough to know that we will not find the 
term partial-birth abortion in any medical textbooks. There are 
procedures that we will find in medical textbooks, but the authors of 
this legislation would prefer to use the language of propaganda rather 
than the language of medical science.
  This bill, as written, fails every test the Supreme Court has laid 
down for what might or might not be a constitutional regulation on 
abortion. It reads almost as if the authors went through the Supreme 
Court's recent decision in Stenberg v. Carhart and went out of their 
way to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court, and especially at 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is generally viewed as a swing vote on 
such matters and who wrote a concurring opinion stating specifically 
what would be needed to uphold a statute.
  Unless the authors think that when the court has made repeated and 
clear statements over the years of what the Constitution requires in 
this area they were just pulling our leg, this bill has to be facially 
and obviously unconstitutional.
  Now, if people wanted to write a bill that said we are going to ban 
late-term abortions, which this bill is sometimes referred to, although 
incorrectly, if they wanted to write a bill that said we are going to 
ban late-term abortions after viability, and we are going to include in 
the bill an exception for when the abortion is necessary for the life 
or health of the mother, they could do that. It would be a 
constitutional bill and Members could debate it in good conscience.
  But they have chosen not to do that. They have chosen to write a 
facially unconstitutional bill that they know perfectly well is 
unconstitutional, despite all the nonsense we have heard today; that 
they know will never see the light of day because it is 
unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has given us a specific precise 
recipe of what a constitutional bill would look like.
  So this bill is political propaganda. It gives people something to go 
home and talk about, but falsely talk about, because it is clearly 
unconstitutional. The bill does not contain a life and health 
exception, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is necessary 
throughout pregnancy, even post viability.
  I know that some of my colleagues may not like this rule. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) talked about why he did not like a 
health exception. But there it is in the Constitution as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court, whether we like it or not. We have to put it in a 
bill if we want the bill to be constitutional.

                              {time}  1630

  Even the Ashcroft Justice Department, in its brief defending a 
similar Ohio statute, has recently acknowledged that a health exception 
is required by the Constitution. I may disagree with Mr. Ashcroft's 
Justice Department on whether the Ohio statute adequately protects 
women's health, at least Attorney General Ashcroft and his Department 
acknowledge that the law requires a health exception, requires that 
protection if it is not going to be factually unconstitutional.
  This bill purports to solve this problem with findings; 15 of the 18 
pages of the bill are findings, congressional findings of fact. 
Congressional findings of medical fact, as if we are expert doctors 
here, all of us. If there is one thing that this activist Supreme Court 
that we have now has made clear, it is that it is not very deferential 
to Congress' findings of fact.
  Congress can declare anything it wants. It can declare the moon is 
made of green cheese, but it does not make it factual and it does not 
make the courts bound to accept anything that we say at face value 
simply because we say so.
  While I realize that many of the proponents of this bill view all 
abortions as tantamount to infanticide, that is their view. It is not a 
mainstream view, and it is not the view of the Supreme Court of the 
United States. If the proponents of this bill wanted to deal with post-
viability abortions where a woman's life and health are not in 
jeopardy, they could write a bill dealing with that issue. Forty-one 
States have such laws, including my own State of New York.
  Members should know better than to believe that this activist 
conservative Supreme Court that we now have, we should know that they 
do not feel any particular need to defer to Congress. Members should 
know what comes of Congress ignoring the will of the Supreme Court. 
Whatever power Congress had under section 5 of the 14th amendment to 
effectuate the purposes of 14th amendment as a result of Katzenbach v. 
Morgan, which was cited by the proponents of the bill, and is cited 
copiously in the bill's findings, I think the more recent Boerne 
decision of the Supreme Court vastly undercuts those powers. And even 
if Katzenbach was still fully good law, as I personally wish it were 
for other reasons, that case empowered Congress only to expand rights 
under the 14th amendment, not to curtail rights under the 14th 
amendment.
  The Supreme Court has held that the right to choose to have an 
abortion is a woman's right under the 14th amendment, with some limits 
that the Supreme Court has recognized; and the Katzenbach decision says 
those rights can be expanded, but not curtail them. This bill aims to 
curtail those rights.
  Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Supreme Court must defer to 
congressional fact-finding even if Congress' so-called facts conflict 
with the preponderance of evidence in litigation before the Court. But 
the drafters of this bill are wrong. First, it is one of the 
fundamental tenets of our constitutional structure which establishes 
three separate branches of the Federal Government that Congress can 
enact laws, but it cannot decide whether those laws are constitutional. 
That is exclusively the Supreme Court's role.
  I realize that one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
said that the Supreme Court wrongly decided Marbury v. Madison, but for 
200 years that has been the law of the land.
  Second, the Supreme Court is not required to defer to our fact-
finding. The Court has the power and duty to independently assess the 
evidence that is presented to it as it did in the Carhart decision. In 
the Carhart decision, the Supreme Court also specifically rejected the 
argument made by the bill's sponsors that the legislation need not 
contain the health exception because intact dilation and extraction, 
so-called intact D&E or D&Ex, is never necessary for a woman's health. 
That statement is right in the bill. The Supreme Court stated a law 
like H.R. 4965 that altogether forbids D&Ex creates a significant 
health risk and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious attempt to deal with a 
problem, any problem. This bill is an attempt to fool the people of the 
United States into thinking that they are trying to deal with a 
problem.
  If the sponsors of this bill wanted to deal with the problem, they 
know how to do it. Justice O'Connor told them specifically. They do not 
want a bill that would ban late-term abortions with an exception for 
when the health

[[Page H5358]]

or life of the mother is threatened. They do not want that. If they 
wanted that, they would write it, we would pass it, and it would be 
constitutional. What they want is a charade, a bill that is flatly 
unconstitutional, will accomplish nothing, will not see the light of 
day in the Senate; and, frankly, it is a charade, and the time of the 
House should not be wasted on charades like this when we cannot find 
time to do a lot of things that the welfare of this country demand that 
we do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wishes to 
speed the process up, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my 
time and go to an immediate vote if the gentleman from New York will do 
the same.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the sponsors of this bill 
do not want an open debate.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act. Partial-birth abortion is an antiseptic word for a 
barbaric procedure. Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a 
supporter of abortion rights, described it accurately as near 
infanticide.
  Mr. Speaker, the arguments for this bill are legion, and endeavors by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), they are also arguable, and we will hear those 
arguments today: the argument that our bill as we believe is superior 
to the Nebraska bill which has been rejected and struck down and will 
pass constitutional muster; the argument that will ensue today that 
this procedure is never medically necessary. The AMA said it is 
ethically wrong. They said it is never the only appropriate procedure, 
but we can argue the medicine and the endorsements. What is not 
arguable is that this practice is inherently and morally wrong.
  What is not arguable is that the practice of delivering a newborn 
child alive, feet first, and holding it in the birth canal squirming 
while the back of its head is stabbed with a suction device is evil. 
That is not arguable.
  Today we will render unlawful or at least begin to render unlawful 
what virtually every American knows in their heart is evil and morally 
wrong. That is why the overwhelming majority of the American people 
reject this practice and want it banned in the United States of 
America. Justice has always been defined by how societies protect the 
innocent and punish those who do them harm. The Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act is such a bill. Of the innocent and defenseless the Bible 
admonishes that ``whatsoever you do for the least of these you do for 
me.'' Banning partial-birth abortion is the least we can do for the 
least of these.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on page 16 of the bill it reads ``partial-
birth abortion,'' a term that does not exist in medicine, ``is never 
medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother.''
  Mr. Speaker, all of us here came to Congress having done other things 
in our lives; and sometimes I think that God sends us here to tell a 
particular story, and I feel that way today because I can tell the 
story of someone who had to have this procedure, and that person is the 
daughter-in-law of my friend, Susie Wilson. Before I was elected to 
Congress, Susie was so excited that her daughter-in-law, Vicki, was 
going to have a little girl. Susie had three boys and there were 
grandsons, but no girls. We were excited for Susie, and we found out at 
the end of Vicki's pregnancy that the granddaughter, they had already 
picked out a name, Abigail, that the baby's brains had formed almost 
completely outside of the cranium.
  I saw the ultrasound picture, and it looked like there were two heads 
on this child. The question was not whether they would have the Abigail 
they wanted and prayed for, but how they would terminate this 
pregnancy, and whether in addition to having no Abigail, whether Vicki 
would also live; and if she lived, whether she would be healthy enough 
to continue to care for her two boys. So this procedure was what was 
safest for Vicki, and Susie went down there to be with her at this 
trying time, and it was devastating not just for Vicki but for her 
husband and for her whole family. It is not just a woman's issue.
  So when I read these words, I know there is something else afoot here 
today, and it is not about medicine and caring for women's health and 
respecting the trauma that families go through in these very 
devastating circumstances. It is about 30-second ads.
  That is why we are here today. We are here to tee up another round of 
30-second ads in the November election. I think it is shameful. I hope 
we can vote against this bill and speak out against this outrageous 
politicization.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4965, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. My constituents in western Pennsylvania 
and a majority of the public in general have urged us as a Congress to 
end partial-birth abortion. Congress has tried to end this unnecessary 
and horrific procedure, and instead we have entered into a debate of 
semantics about what this procedure should be called, or if it is ever 
necessary.
  No matter what one calls it, the fact is that this is a horrific 
procedure that is tantamount to murder. It is a tremendously violent 
procedure. During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a 
living baby, feet first, out of the womb and into the birth canal, 
except for the head. He then punctures the base of the baby's skull 
with surgical scissors, inserts a tube into that wound, removes the 
brain, causing the skull to collapse at which time the now-dead baby is 
then delivered. This procedure actually co-opts the birth process to 
take the child's life.
  This procedure that we are voting to ban today, no matter what we 
want to label it, is unconscionable and must be ended. Critics of the 
bill have attempted to cloud the issue of the gruesome murder of 
children by saying the bill fails women because it does not permit an 
exception for the health of the woman.
  The findings of the bill clearly note, after extensive hearings on 
the issue, substantial evidence exists that the preservation of the 
health of the mother is never cited as a factor for partial-birth 
abortions. No studies of this procedure have been done. It is not a 
medically accepted procedure.
  Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, Dr. Leroy Carhart, nor 
the experts who testified on his behalf have identified a single 
circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion is necessary to 
preserve the health of a woman. In fact, the opposite is true; and this 
creates a health risk for the woman, this procedure of partial-birth 
abortion.
  It is imperative for us to act and ban partial-birth abortion once 
and for all. As the civilized and compassionate country that we are or 
hope to be, it is imperative that we act now.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker would be more impressive if the 
gentlewoman would acknowledge that the AMA now opposes this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we are just days away from the August recess, but 
instead of using this time to pass the very important spending bills 
that we have not even looked at yet, the GOP leadership has once again 
scheduled a vote on an issue that the Supreme Court has already struck 
down.
  Let us be clear. This debate on the so-called partial-birth abortion 
procedure is nothing more than a ploy to advance the political agenda 
of the anti-

[[Page H5359]]

choice community, and they have made it quite clear that their 
political schemes are worth sacrificing the health of American women. 
But we cannot fall for this. We cannot fall for this outrageous 
propaganda of the anti-choice community. We cannot let them twist 
another health care issue into a political issue.

                              {time}  1645

  We should be promoting a woman's health, not endangering it. We 
should be debating concrete measures to reduce the number of unintended 
pregnancies and to ensure that all pregnant women have affordable 
access to the care they need so they can deliver healthy babies, not 
telling doctors how to practice medicine.
  American women are counting on us to ensure that their doctors can 
provide the care that best meets their individual medical needs. The 
highest court in the land ruled that our government has no authority to 
force a woman to risk her health or her life in order to carry a 
pregnancy to term. Let us put politics aside and think of American 
women first. The Federal Government has no business poking its nose in 
decisions that are best left to a woman and to her doctor.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this blatant attack on women's health 
and vote against H.R. 4965.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me when I listen to 
debates on the floor at the tremendous disconnect between the rhetoric 
we hear and the substance of the bill. This afternoon we will hear a 
lot of people talking about choice when they know this bill is not 
about choice. We will hear them talk about abortion, and this bill is 
really not about abortion. This bill, substantively when you look at 
it, is about one procedure, one procedure that is so painful to an 
unborn baby, so barbaric, so egregious that even the most extreme 
proponent of abortion has to look at it and say it shocks even their 
conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, when we leave here tonight and all the pounding on the 
podium is done and all the rhetoric is finished and the lights are 
turned off, one thing will loom ever present, and that is this fact, 
that all of the testimony that we have heard on this bill suggests that 
an unborn baby feels pain even more than the actual baby when it is 
born, because of the development of the nervous system.
  Mr. Speaker, when it all comes down to whether this bill should be 
passed or not, the question is very simple. Is there no amount of pain 
that is so great that we would inflict upon an unborn baby? Is there no 
procedure that is so egregious that we will not be prepared to step up 
and say that goes too far and we cannot allow that to happen? Mr. 
Speaker, if that is what this bill says, that this procedure goes too 
far, we cannot allow it to happen, we cannot allow this kind of pain to 
be inflicted on an unborn baby, that is why, Mr. Speaker, it is 
important that we pass this piece of legislation, and I hope we will do 
just that this afternoon.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) for being the leader on this issue for our committee 
as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution. I also 
come to the floor acknowledging that this poses an emotional dilemma 
for so many of us, whether or not you happen to want to describe a very 
personal and private medical procedure that is known to be a small 
percentage of the judgment of physicians and individuals who have to 
subject themselves to such procedure out of the necessity of saving 
lives, I believe that it is key that we look at this as straightforward 
as we possibly can.
  For, Mr. Speaker, I could relate to you as a woman the pain that I 
have experienced or I have seen from women who have tried in all manner 
to be able to bring a loving child into this world, women who have gone 
beyond any expression or any belief to be able to secure the 
opportunity to procreate. That is really the main definition, if you 
will, of a mother. It is someone who wants to nurture, wants to love 
and wants to be able to raise a child. But what my friends and 
colleagues are doing year after year after year, and appropriately for 
them it comes right at the time of an election, is to demonize a woman 
for simply wanting to have an opportunity, one, to live and, two, to be 
able to procreate.
  I think we should pay attention to the Stenberg decision which has 
now come since the last time we debated this matter, and I do not 
believe we should take lightly the decision of six Supreme Court 
justices. That is right, Mr. Speaker, six, some of them concurring on 
this opinion. It means that the principle of a right to choose and 
privacy in this Nation is well documented in Supreme Court law. That is 
the basis of this Nation, three distinct branches of government; the 
Marbury decision suggesting that the Supreme Court is the supreme law 
of the land.
  My colleagues have said that when the pornography law came forward, 
we came to the floor of the House. They are absolutely right. That has 
not yet been tested by this court. But we have before us a Stenberg 
decision which, let me cite for this body, makes it very clear of where 
the Supreme Court is going. Justice Breyer writes very eloquently that 
he knows what a personal decision this is for so many who debate the 
question of abortion. He recognizes that when we debate this question, 
the court has to move in and reconcile the diverse opinions, the 
emotion that grabs hold to individuals of their different opinions.
  Justice Breyer says that this court, in the course of a generation, 
has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic 
protection to the woman's right to choose, and we shall not revisit 
those legal principles. We shall not revisit these legal principles. 
Rather, we apply them to the circumstances of this case.
  They go on to say that three basic principles that we determine 
before us is that, in fact, we shall put them forth in the language of 
this opinion, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her 
pregnancy. Secondarily, a law designed to further the State's interest 
in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on the woman's decision 
before fetal viability, it is unconstitutional, the undue burden 
concept. And, third, 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 where it is necessary, in 
appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or 
health of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why this bill is unfortunately a political 
exercise, despite the emotion that comes to this floor, because we have 
asked those who propose this legislation to include an exception on the 
health of the mother, those who want to be able to procreate. They have 
not looked at the personal concerns of those who begged to have a child 
but yet they suggest that the medical judgment that has been made by a 
physician is wrong and they should be put in jail.
  We have obstetricians from the American College of OB-GYN who clearly 
say that this bill is wrong because it denies them the right to treat 
their patients and save lives and protect the health of the mother.
  I hope that we will see the light and be able to yield forth 
legislation that truly helps the American people.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of 
banning partial-birth abortion. As a citizen of this great country, I 
am ashamed that this barbaric act occurs in the greatest country in the 
world, the United States of America, the greatest civilized country in 
the world. And I stand here as a parent, as a lawmaker, and I feel a 
moral obligation to stand up to fight for the rights of the unborn.
  I want to describe this horrific procedure. First, the doctor sticks 
forceps into the mother and grabs ahold of the baby's feet so they can 
turn it around and pull it out. They pull the baby into the birth canal 
by its legs and the baby does feel pain at this point. They get the 
baby out and at this point the doctor has to make sure that he blocks 
the head before it can come out because if he does not, he cannot 
murder the baby, it is considered a live birth. He blocks the head into 
the mother and sticks scissors into the back of the

[[Page H5360]]

skull, opening the scissors and the baby is withering around at this 
point because it is feeling the pain and sticks a tube, a suction tube, 
into the skull and sucks the brains out, collapsing the skull, killing 
the baby, the baby goes limp and then they pull the baby out dead. This 
is a horrible act and I think we should support this bill.
  People on the left talk about the life and health of the mother. What 
about the life and health of the baby? We ought to be protecting them 
and thinking about them. It is a human life. It is a human life. I have 
heard my friends on the left as well stand up and fight harder to 
protect laboratory rats. These are human beings. We have a moral 
obligation to stand up and fight for them. I urge my colleagues to 
support banning this horrific act, partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time and compliment him for his strong leadership on this 
issue and so many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and I would 
like to put this debate in perspective. Today marks the 167th vote 
against women and their right to choose since the Republicans came to 
this House in the majority beginning with the 104th Congress. It is 
nothing more than a cruel ploy to prevent women from obtaining the 
safest and best medical care from their doctors. This is a deceptive 
and unconstitutional, extreme abortion ban. Once again, some of my 
colleagues are trying to strip away difficult private decisions that 
belong in the hands of women and their doctors.
  Many things are the same since the last time we voted on this type of 
ban that puts the rights and health of women in jeopardy. Under this 
bill, women are still prevented from receiving necessary and safe 
medical care. Under this bill, doctors who are sworn to save lives are 
still criminals for doing what they are supposed to do, save lives.
  Under this bill, women are still at risk of losing their future 
fertility, their health and even their lives. But one very important 
thing is very different and that is a Supreme Court decision. In 2000, 
in Stenberg v. Carhart, a law that is very similar to the one we are 
discussing today, banning late-term abortions in Nebraska, was ruled 
unconstitutional because it did not have an exception for the health of 
the woman and because it places an undue burden on a woman's ability to 
obtain an abortion. This means that in addition to being restrictive 
and cruel policy, this bill is unconstitutional.
  The writers of this bill are trying to be both the Supreme Court and 
every woman's doctor. They are making a mockery of the separation of 
powers and are stealing decisions from women and their doctors. This 
bill is a direct assault on Roe v. Wade and a direct attack on a 
woman's right to choose. It politicizes families' tragedies and 
disregards the life and health of the woman.
  The bill is unconstitutional, unsafe and puts an undue burden on 
women. Furthermore, ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of the doctors in this 
field, rejected the ban, and I quote, as inappropriate, ill-advised and 
dangerous.
  With this bill, Congress is doing something that we have never done 
before and something that we should never do, and, that is, dictating 
to doctors and the entire medical establishment which procedure they 
may choose. Congress is overriding the medical profession's best 
judgments, even in emergency situations, and it is in direct conflict 
with a Supreme Court decision ruling it as unconstitutional.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my 
wholehearted support to H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 2002. The partial-birth abortion procedure is a brutal and a violent 
act performed on an innocent victim. We cannot continue to discuss this 
issue in the sterile language of the right to choose. We must call 
partial-birth abortion what it is, the murder of a baby during delivery 
as he or she fights for their first breath of air and struggles to 
survive. We have to come face to face with the cruel injustice of lives 
quickly and callously ended.
  I will also note that there is an appropriate choice for these 
growing children, the choice of allowing them to be raised by a loving, 
adoptive family. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that 
a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a 
mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this 
procedure can pose a significant threat to both. In fact, were the same 
child at the same stage of development outside the mother's womb, he or 
she would be provided life-preserving care and continual medical 
attention. But if that same child is deemed unwanted by the mother, its 
life is violently ended. I say to my colleagues that this makes no 
sense and it is time for Congress and the President to act to end this 
madness.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument has been made that this bill is somehow 
unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court will strike it down like it 
did the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban. I will note that I trust 
the expertise of the Committee on the Judiciary in crafting a bill that 
will pass muster with the court. But even if it were certain that this 
legislation as soon as it was passed would be struck down by an 
imperial judiciary, we must, as Members of Congress, discharge our 
duties to at least attempt to protect the civil rights of the most 
vulnerable, those least able to protect themselves.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor and to support this legislation. I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the manager on this 
side for yielding me time to speak this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed also that we are spending these last 
few hours here while we are in session before we go on a 5-week break 
to talk about this issue, because I do not think it is one that the 
public and constituents in my district really think is of an urgent 
nature. I say that in a very respectful way, because I truly believe 
that to understand this issue of late-term abortion is to understand 
the circumstances that some women have had to take in their past 
because of something that was not in their control.
  I also want to share a personal experience, not one of my own, but of 
a family member. My older sister many years ago had to have a late-term 
abortion. This was going to be her third child. The last one she had 
was already at age 12, so she wanted to have another child. She was 
very excited about her pregnancy. In her fifth month she was told by 
her doctor that this fetus was not forming or developing appropriately, 
in fact, it did not have a brain, so if she were to continue with this 
pregnancy, she in fact would not be giving birth to anything that would 
be able to sustain itself. She was therefore then required to make a 
decision.
  She is a Catholic. She grew up in the same household I did. She has 
the same values, if not stronger. I do not happen to have any children. 
She has. I will never forget the day she got out of hospital and I 
visited with her at home. She was traumatized. She did not want to part 
with that fetus she was carrying for five months. It was a part of her 
and her family.
  Let me tell you there are many women that feel that way that have to 
make those kinds of decisions, not because they wanted to abort for the 
sake of aborting, but because there are other physical limitations that 
are out of our control.
  You can shake your head and say no, you are not talking the truth. 
Let me tell you, there are millions and millions of people out there 
who do understand this issue and do know that there is sympathy across 
the country regarding a woman's right to choose. This is a wrong 
approach, and I would ask my colleagues to vote against this 
proposition.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), a former member of 
the committee.

[[Page H5361]]

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here thinking as we have had this 
debate a couple of times in the past, it comes to my mind that the baby 
eagle in an egg actually has more Federal legal protection from injury 
and harm than a partially born baby has.
  I do rise in strong support of this legislation. We passed it twice 
before with the help of all our pro-life Members and actually many pro-
choice Members, because this procedure is so gruesome. The bills were 
vetoed in 1996 and 1997 by then-President Clinton, but we now, I 
believe, have a President who will sign a ban on this horrible 
procedure.
  The legislation that we are considering today has a new, more precise 
definition of the prohibited procedure and should withstand the Supreme 
Court scrutiny, if challenged.
  Furthermore, our bill includes a Congressional finding that the 
partial-birth abortion is never, and I underline that, is never 
necessary to protect the woman's health. Former Surgeon General C. 
Everett Koop has said, ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically 
necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the 
contrary, though, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both 
the mother and her future fertility.''
  I agree with Dr. Koop. There is actually no evidence that partial-
birth abortion is a necessary procedure to protect a woman's health. 
However, there is an abundance of evidence that a baby in the final 
trimester of pregnancy is extremely sensitive to pain.
  Folks who oppose this have insisted that anesthesia kills the babies 
before they are removed from the womb. This is a myth that has been 
refuted by professional societies of anesthesiologists. In reality, the 
babies are alive and experience great pain when subjected to a partial-
birth abortion.
  I believe the Federal Government has a duty to protect all Americans, 
including the born, unborn and partially unborn. I ask my colleagues 
today, both pro-life and pro-choice, to join in banning this gruesome 
procedure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are with 2 days left before 
the August recess, and here is what we still have to do: Consider 
expulsion of only the second Member of Congress in our Nation's 
history, have nine appropriation bills left to pass, establishing a 
Department of Homeland Security so we can protect our country against 
terrorism, and dealing with the financial crisis our country is facing. 
Instead, what are we doing? The Republican leadership has scheduled 2 
hours of debate on so-called partial-birth abortion. What is going on?
  Well, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, it is an election 
year, and now it is time to bring up this hot button issue. But with a 
difference this year, with a twist, because this year the Supreme Court 
has held a bill almost identical to the bill up for consideration today 
unconstitutional.
  From the wild rhetoric we are hearing on the other side today, one 
would think that women wake up suddenly in their ninth month of 
pregnancy and say, ``You know, I am tired of being pregnant. I think I 
am going to go have a partial-birth abortion.'' This is insulting to 
the women of this country and to the women whose tragic stories we have 
heard on the House floor today.
  It is simply not true. This is a very rare and tragic procedure which 
happens only under the most difficult of circumstances and which the 
U.S. Congress should not be legislating, but which a woman and her 
family and her doctor should be deciding.
  For the woman whose health is in serious danger, being able to make 
the most medically sound decision is vital. These are tragic moments in 
people's lives, as we have been hearing today, and we should not be 
interfering in that.
  The gentleman from Virginia and others said this bill is just simply 
about outlawing one medical procedure. Well, that may be true, but 
Congress would not think about getting involved in medical procedures 
of any other kind.
  It is really appalling to me, because this is an issue where 
politicians for electoral gain try to dictate a woman's actions, impugn 
her motives, question her morality and ultimately remove her authority 
to make a decision about her own body, and that is what we are debating 
on the floor today.
  But there are two things different, as I said. The first one is the 
Supreme Court overturned the Nebraska case on the grounds that you have 
to have a health exception for the woman. Guess what? This bill has no 
health exception. There is no health exception whatsoever. If this bill 
were passed into law, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. 
This is a fact. Let me say it again: If this bill were passed into law, 
the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Why on Earth would we 
pass a bill we know for a fact is unconstitutional?
  Secondly, while the bill purports to ban only a certain procedure, in 
fact the actual language is much broader and could be used to ban many 
other kinds of abortion. To be honest, that is the true ultimate goal 
of the proponents of the bill.
  So I say vote yes on the motion to recommit, which will add a health 
exception, and vote no on final passage.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that saving the lives of some partially-born 
babies is worth 2 hours of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary,.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, there is so much fantasy about this issue. The 
pro-abortion people shudder from using that term, and they use a 
euphemism, ``reproductive rights.'' They do not refer to the unborn 
baby in the womb, they refer to the ``products of conception.'' And 
when that unborn baby dies as a result of an abortion, by the way, they 
want to ``terminate'' a pregnancy. It is exterminate. That is what they 
want to do. And the ``choice,'' for pro-choice, they get the choice of 
a dead baby or a live baby.
  You can listen carefully, as I did, to the statements made by the 
opponents of this legislation, and you listen and strain your auditory 
nerves. You will not hear the word ``baby'' or ``child.'' That is the X 
factor. That is the missing element here. You will hear about the 
woman. You will hear about her difficulties, and well we should.
  But the baby is absolutely missing, although if you look through an 
ultrasonograph, a pregnant woman knows she has a little tiny member of 
the human family. And at what point does that tiny member of the human 
family get protected by the Equal Protection Clause and due process of 
our Constitution? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness, nor shall any person be deprived of equal 
protection of the law.
  When does that attach? When the baby is four-fifths born, as in this 
grotesque, gruesome process called partial-birth abortion? Four-fifths 
born, and the doctor takes a scissors, called a Metzenbaum scissors, 
and shoves it in the back of the neck of the little baby, and then, 
with the opening, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull.
  Talk about grotesque. You would not treat a laboratory rat like that. 
But the baby, the X factor, the fetus, the product of conception. Well, 
maybe when it is in the womb and you have to use an ultrasonograph to 
see it, you can abstract it that way. But when it is four-fifths born, 
it is there and you cannot avoid it.
  This situation is lamentable. But I would say to the women who defend 
abortion, look around the globe and see who takes the brunt. The little 
girl babies. They are the ones that are thrown away in certain 
countries because there are too many of them.
  It is to protect every little child that the pro-life movement 
advances its cause. Human life is precious. I see Members with little 
children on the floor. Those little children were once fetuses, 
embryos. They were tiny, tiny little cells, and an abortion kills that 
life. That is wrong.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican 
and

[[Page H5362]]

mother of three when her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her 
child. Her doctors preserved Mrs. Costello's fertility with a procedure 
being outlawed in this bill. She then became pregnant again and gave 
birth to her fourth child.
  Listen to this loving mother's words. ``Because of this procedure, I 
now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy named Tucker. 
He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.''
  Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House has the right to substitute his 
or her judgment for that of a physician and a mother faced with a rare 
but tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing, a child has no 
chance of living outside of the mother's womb, and the goal is to save 
a mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right, not one.
  If there is one late-term abortion in America for frivolous reasons, 
that is one too many, regardless of the procedure used. I am strongly 
opposed to late-term abortions. But I believe when the health of the 
mother is at risk, that is a choice, a decision that should be made by 
a woman and her doctors, and not by politicians in Washington, D.C.
  That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the United States 
Supreme Court in its opinion dated June 28, 2000. In that indication, 
the Supreme Court and its majority of justices made it very clear that 
the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law was unconstitutional, in these 
words.

                              {time}  1715

  ``. . . Because it lacks an exception for those instances when the 
banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.''
  That is as clear as the English language can be. Justice O'Connor, 
the swing vote on this issue, has made it clear. No health exception 
for a woman, no law; no law, not one baby saved.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has two flaws in it that make it little more 
than politics at its worst, as Ralph Reed said, a political silver 
bullet. First, it is unconstitutional, therefore meaningless. It is a 
false promise. Second, if the authors of this bill truly believe that 
American women are monsters who would take a perfectly healthy baby 
seconds before a perfectly healthy child birth and puncture its brain 
and kill that innocent child, then why is it that they just want to 
outlaw one procedure? If you assume the woman is that kind of a 
monster, then under your bill even if it were law and were 
constitutional, which it is not, then the woman can choose to use other 
late-term abortion procedures. Once again, a meaningless law, a 
meaningless bill that will not save one baby's life.
  I think the people who should really be offended by this bill are 
those genuine pro-life Americans who want to stop late-term abortions. 
I want to stop late-term abortions, and I hope others who do would ask 
the proponents of this bill two questions. Is politics so important, 
you would rather pass a clearly unconstitutional bill than a bill that 
could actually become law, a bill like I helped pass in Texas 15 years 
ago that is still the law of that State today? Second question: Why are 
you outlawing one procedure and leaving every other late-term abortion 
procedure perfectly legal?
  This bill is politics at its worst. It is a false promise.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure 
to ban a horrific procedure. For my generation, we have walked in as 
mothers and fathers into our doctors' offices and we have had the 
stethoscope with amplifier hooked to the mother's stomach. We have 
heard the heartbeat of the child at 11 weeks fill the room with a 
beating and a pounding and a pulsing of life. In the second trimester 
in the fourth month, we walk in and with modern technology in the 
window through the womb we see our babies. We know whether it is a boy 
or a girl. We see their heartbeat, we see their arms and legs kick and 
move. We see them suck their thumbs. We as a generation have had the 
experience of being in the delivery room to actually hold a baby as it 
arrives, to cut the umbilical cord, to know that what was once hidden 
is no more, what was once a mystery is now a revelation of life. I 
would ask us all, then, to stand for the life that we know, to stop 
this horrific practice.
  Mr. Speaker, my generation has had the opportunity to walk into our 
doctor's office, and through the use of technology we have heard the 
beating of our unborn child's heart, we have seen the movement of the 
child's arms and legs. We know whether the child is a boy or girl. We 
have been able to be present in the delivery to room to hold the 
newborn child and cut the umbilical cord. What was once hidden is now 
known. What was once a mystery is now a wonderful revelation of newborn 
life.
  I would ask my colleagues that before they cast a vote on this 
measure, listen to that heartbeat. Look into the womb. Feel the kick of 
the baby's legs and arms.
  Before the abortionist sticks the scissors into the baby's skull, 
turn the baby. Look at that face and the fullness of life that resides 
in it. Feel the baby's body and the very essence of life. If you still 
have the courage, then insert the scissors. Collapse the brain, and 
take the life. But, if you do that, our nation, our people, or anyone 
who allows this or commits this act violates the nation's ideal that 
all are created equal and are endowed with the unalienable rights of 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  If we allow this to continue as a nation, we have lost our moral 
compass. We have lost our conscience.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this debate, 
the more opposed I come to this legislation. This ban on late-term 
abortion unconstitutionally endangers women's health. In the Stenberg 
v. Carhart trial, which ruled a Nebraska law that banned the so-called 
partial-birth abortion bill unconstitutional, the Supreme Court 
concluded that women's health must always be protected. According to 
the Court, the abortion restriction would force women to use riskier 
forms of abortion. Additionally, they ruled that if a current medical 
procedure set in place may be safer for some women in certain 
circumstances, then it cannot be banned. For this reason and reaffirmed 
in 1999, this ban is still unconstitutional. As of today the American 
Medical Association, which is one of the largest physician 
organizations in America, who usually supports abortion ban 
legislation, has changed their stance and concluded this late-term 
abortion act unhealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a woman's right of choice. I am in favor of 
medical decisions being made in private by women and their families in 
consultation with their doctors, and not politicians. I am a full 
supporter of choice without reservation. It should be the definitive 
right of the individual to make personal decisions regarding their 
health. I believe the late-term abortion ban invites the government 
into our doctors' offices and limits the choices of women.
  I trust women to make decisions that affect their life, body and 
destiny. There is no more fundamental challenge than protecting a 
woman's reproductive health. That means guaranteeing a woman's right to 
choose. This so-called partial-birth abortion ban is part of a 
political scheme to sensationalize the abortion debate.
  The truth is that the phrase ``partial-birth abortion'' is a 
political term, not a medical term. Partial-birth abortion bans have 
never been about banning one procedure nor about late-term abortions. 
They are deceptively designed to be intentionally vague in the attempt 
to ban abortion entirely. This bill opens the door for legislators to 
ban even more safe abortion procedures. Therefore, I urge that we 
protect the woman's right to choose, we protect the woman's right to 
protect her health, and vote to protect the woman's right to protect 
her life. Vote ``no'' to the partial-birth abortion ban.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I heard the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend, 
quarrel with the term ``partial-birth abortion.''
  If we think of the operation, the procedure, as they laughingly call 
it, it is partial birth, and it is an abortion. I know my colleagues 
hate the word ``abortion.'' We never see a doctor saying, I am an 
abortionist. But that is

[[Page H5363]]

what they are; they are abortions. ``No Member has the right.'' What? 
We have a duty to defend the defenseless, and there is nothing weaker, 
more pitiful, more vulnerable than a little baby in the mother's womb, 
and the mother, who should be its protector, has suddenly become its 
adversary. Somebody has to speak for that little baby.
  Former Senator Moynihan never voted with us once over the years; but 
when this came along, he said that it is too close to infanticide, 
infanticide, and that is exactly what it is.
  As far as the Supreme Court, we can keep trying to have them get it 
right, can we not? You would not be satisfied with Dred Scott, would 
you?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and ought to be supported.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  First of all, there are no third-term abortions of healthy babies in 
America. It is illegal. But it is an absolutely horrendous insult to 
the women of America to think that we would carry an infant through 
pregnancy and arbitrarily and lightly choose to take that infant's 
life. It is not done. Women do not do it.
  As one who has carried children, four children full term and 
experienced both the joy and the pain of childbirth, I know of no woman 
who is not transformed by pregnancy and does not value that life she 
carries within her; and the implication that we do not is so offensive 
to me that I am astounded that my colleagues can get up here and 
present the image of women, for convenience sake, choosing a late-term 
abortion.
  There are no late-term abortions of healthy babies that are legal, 
and this bill does not ban late-term abortions. This bill attempts to 
ban a specific procedure, and it does it so clumsily that it does not 
differentiate between the constitutionally prescribed pre-viability and 
post-viability procedures and, therefore, tramples on the rights of 
women to make choices about the responsibilities they are going to take 
throughout their lives.
  We have in America the right to make that choice early in a 
pregnancy. We need that choice. We deserve that choice. We have that 
right, and we have the right to do it in a medically responsible way; 
and this bill abrogates that right because it does not differentiate 
between the normal surgical procedure that is used early in pregnancy 
and the specific procedure it is trying to eliminate.
  This legislation, as introduced, applies throughout a pregnancy and 
disregards the crucial constitutional distinction between pre- and 
post-viability abortions.
  Furthermore, it completely disregards the issue of the woman's 
health. It does not matter in this bill whether she has two, three, or 
four children depending upon her; the government is going to make the 
decision about how her health should be managed.
  In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a 
Nebraska statute banning so-called partial-birth abortion was 
unconstitutional for two independent reasons. The statute lacked the 
necessary exception for preserving the health of the woman, and the 
definition of the targeted procedure was so vague it could prescribe 
other abortion procedures. Well, these arguments apply to this bill, 
both of those arguments. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4965 contains no exception 
to preserve the health of the woman; and it is so vague it can be 
applied to the D&E procedure. Its prohibition can be applied to that 
and, therefore, does, without question, abrogate the right of women to 
handle their reproductive capabilities responsibly.
  This is, in my estimation, the worst bill that has come before this 
Congress. I have wanted for a long time to just say how deeply offended 
I am that my male colleagues and some pro-life colleagues whose views I 
deeply respect could assume that American women would choose to abort a 
late-term child that they have carried within them. I know of no woman 
who ever has; I know of no case that shows a healthy child being 
aborted for the purposes of destroying that child. I hope that this 
will be the last time we will debate this, and I hope we will defeat 
this issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 
2002, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important 
legislation. I also am proud to serve as the cochair of the pro-life 
caucus along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). The 
courageous leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in 
legislative efforts to boldly and consistently protect the unborn is 
unparalleled. It has been a pleasure to share this important 
chairmanship with him these past several years. It is also a pleasure, 
as the lead Democratic sponsor of H.R. 4965, to say how much I 
appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for 
his steadfast leadership and commitment on this issue and so many other 
important pro-life issues that we deal with here in the Congress. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Partial-birth abortions are most often performed in the second or 
third trimester, and I am particularly troubled by the horrifying 
aspects of late-term abortions, because there is no doubt that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure inflicts terrible pain upon the baby 
being killed. H.R. 4965 not only bans this type of atrocious procedure, 
but imposes fines and a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for any person 
who administers a partial-birth abortion. This gruesome and brutal 
procedure should not be permitted.
  I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, and if 80 percent of 
abortions are elective, we must reconsider and reevaluate the values 
society places on human life. In many cases, this is a cold, 
calculated, and selfish decision.

                              {time}  1730

  This is not a choice issue, this is a life and death issue for an 
innocent child. It is long overdue that this heinous procedure is made 
illegal.
  Although I am a pro-life Democrat, I am that grateful we now have a 
pro-life president who is signing this critical piece of legislation 
into law. The President's support will abrogate the need for a two-
thirds vote in the Senate which has proven impossible to attain. The 
prospects for making the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of this 
land have improved greatly. Please vote to end this horrific procedure 
once and for all.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today and 
have had to come in and out, because it is very difficult for me to 
consume the kind of emotionally charged graphic illustration and 
display of the subject matter that is contained in this legislation.
  I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, in 1997, and since the time that I 
was sworn in to the 105th Congress, I have had to vote on abortion 109 
times; 109 times this House, this United States Congress has brought 
before it this issue of abortion. It is mind boggling that we have 
children, on a daily basis, since we are all concerned about the well-
being of our children, and I doubt that none of us are truly concerned 
that we have children around this country who have malnutrition, who 
lack proper medical care, who commit suicide, and it has been in the 
news on a regular, daily basis about children who are being abused, who 
are being sexually molested, who are being kidnapped from their homes, 
and there is not one squeak of any comment from the other side about 
the vulnerability of those children.
  Yet, I have to come down to this floor 109 times since I have been in 
Congress to vote on a matter of abortion.
  It does make you mighty suspicious that an issue as delicate as this, 
the choice that a woman makes with the help of her medical doctor, 
would have to come before the United States Congress. And it is 
especially suspicious that medical privacy is an issue here; and there 
is no reference to medical privacy at all. How would anyone know in the 
House of Representatives that a woman, in consultation with her doctor, 
a very private decision engaging in

[[Page H5364]]

a very private medical procedure, how would one here know about it 
unless there is something in this bill that I have not read that 
provides hidden cameras maybe in a hospital room or doctor's office 
that allows some peeping tom to stand there and watch what procedure is 
administered against a woman in consultation with her doctor.
  What privilege is there in this bill that violates medical privacy? 
How would any Members know that a woman has had an abortion unless 
there is some peeping tom exemption in this bill that allows you to see 
what happens?
  It just makes me ill, and I know my opponent is recording this 
because the other side has called him and told him to do that. And I 
hope he plays the full thing.
  Every time this is here I vote against it. We have voted $594 million 
worth of pay raises for this Congress since I have been in here, but we 
have not done diddly squat about all of these innocent and vulnerable 
children who have been kidnapped from their homes who are being killed 
on their driveways by predators.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has a concept about a 
DNA bank at the Attorney Generals Office. Those are the kind of issues 
that we need to be exploring for the children of America, and not 
providing some peeping tom, ill-conceived, 110th time in the Congress 
on an abortion issue.
  There is a poet that all of us are all familiar with that starts off, 
``Hear my humble cry; and while on others you are calling, do not pass 
me by.'' And I do not want all of these kids who are victimized by 
these criminals in this country to be passed by while we are spending 
two crazy hours engaging in an unconstitutional debate that only 
further the feathers of somebody's political aggrandizement.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, shortly the Democrats will offer a 
motion to recommit, and I hope the vote on that is not charged against 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the entire debate today and I cannot 
help but think of a television program I was watching about crime the 
other day about pickpockets and purse snatchers. There are groups of 
people that create a diversion so that someone else can go up and 
commit the evil deed, but the diversion takes place, and this debate 
today reminds me of that.
  Being accused of trying to eliminate a brutal, violent, inhumane act 
for political purposes for, or questions of constitutionality simply 
reminds me of pickpockets because the diversion just does not cut it.
  According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, and some other medical sources, it 
appears that partial birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times 
annually. Even those numbers could be low. Based on published 
interviews with numerous abortionists and interviews with Mr. 
Fitzsimmons in 1997, the ``vast majority'' of partial birth abortions 
are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy on healthy 
babies of healthy mothers.
  We have already heard that the statement from former Surgeon General 
C. Everett Koop that ``partial birth abortion is never medically 
necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the 
contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  Dr. James McMahon, who is considered to be the developer of this 
method, explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on 
babies with no flaw whatsoever, even in the third trimester for reasons 
such as the mere youth of the mother or psychiatric difficulties.
  These abortions do occur. It is arrogant of anyone to regard human 
life as flawed, and we need to support this bill and stop this violent 
process.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, well, as President Reagan has 
often said, ``Here we go again.''
  It is amazing to me that we have been on this floor, especially 
during an election year, with this very issue that comes before us as 
if to say, as my dear friend from Indiana (Ms. Carson) said, it raises 
a certain amount of suspicions.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today protesting strongly against H.R. 4965 
which seeks to limit a woman's right to choose medical options 
appropriate for herself and her family in consultation with her 
physician.
  As Members of Congress, we are elected by our constituents to present 
their interests fairly here in Washington. We are not sent here to 
enact poorly-constructed legislation that would hinder the health and 
well-being of those entrusting us to make laws. Therefore, I must 
vehemently register my opposition to H.R. 4965 as an infringement on 
the personal choice and free will of women and families I am here to 
represent.
  H.R. 4965 is bad legislation because it eliminates a health exception 
for women, and given that the Supreme Court has indicated that every 
restriction must allow an abortion when necessary, in appropriate 
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the 
mother. Women and their families must be able to make decisions 
regarding their medical care along with their doctors and without the 
interference of Congress.
  It seems to me then, Mr. Speaker, we are being subjected once again 
to the narrow political agenda of a group of people in deference of 
what is good for women's health and what is defined as legal by the 
Supreme Court. We must continue to be vigilant in preserving a woman's 
right and to make necessary choices for her own health in accordance 
with the law.
  I would say simply that women across this country now are looking in 
on this and they too are concerned about why we have to constantly be 
given the time spent on this type of misguided piece of legislation 
when we can well be talking about the 11 million children who are 
uninsured. I have yet to see that type of law come to the floor.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary for the privilege of standing in the 
well of this House to address the barbaric procedure commonly 
euphemistically known as partial birth abortion. It is murder, pure and 
simple.
  The previous speaker quoted that great president, the greatest 
president of the 21 century, Ronald Reagan, ``Here we go again.'' You 
are darn right. It needs to be reminded over and over again to the 
American people what a barbaric procedure this is. And at least in this 
instance, all Americans can join together and say we, at least, draw 
this line. We, at least, say enough is enough.
  President Reagan, to quote him, also spoke in January of 1985 when he 
was sworn in as our President for a second term of something he very 
quietly but very eloquently called the ``American sound.'' He said the 
American sound is that sound which is echoed out across the ages, 
across the continent, across our continent. It is the sound, he said, 
of a Nation conceived by God, created in God's image for God's 
purposes. He said, it is a Nation that has always held in its heart 
compassion and love for fellow human beings.
  I think if President Reagan were here today, he would say the 
American sound is alive and well in the House of Representatives. It is 
indeed the sounds of love and compassion, belief in God, and belief in 
the unborn, and belief in the right of that child, that precious baby 
to be born and to serve in God's image on this great land and in this 
great country.
  I believe if President Reagan were here today he would say, thank 
you, Congress, thank you America, for standing up for the least 
defensive among us, for the most defenseless among us.
  If, indeed, our colleagues join us as we expect today in passing this 
ban on this barbaric procedure, which no American can truly justify or 
defend, then President Reagan would indeed say, It is morning again in 
America for America's babies. Thank God.

[[Page H5365]]

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Here we are on cue, Mr. Speaker. The annual late term abortion bill. 
This is the bill where Congress tries not to make law but to make 
mischief. Why would Congress want to put a woman in jeopardy of her 
health and a physician in jeopardy of prison for 2 years and a fine by 
prohibiting one and only one procedure?
  Actually, Congress does not want to put the physician in jeopardy. 
What Congress wants to do is to keep the physician from performing any 
abortion including legal abortions. And if this bill passes, that is 
exactly what will happen across this country.
  The point of this bill is to make it legally risky to perform any 
abortion because the physician cannot be sure he will not be 
prosecuted. That is why the courts have struck down these late-term 
abortion bans time and time again.
  The bill tries to simply hop over Roe versus Wade with 15 pages of 
congressional findings. But congressional findings cannot overrule a 
Supreme Court decision. Congressional findings cannot nullify a woman's 
constitutional right. Congressional findings cannot defeat a woman's 
right to have an abortion if her health is in danger. This bill is not 
even a nice try. It is plainly unconstitutional. Worse, it is an insult 
to the women of America.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is one of the most 
violent and gruesome acts known to mankind. It is hard to believe that 
it is legal at all in a Nation that was founded on the principle of 
human rights.
  Some years ago it was believed that partial-birth abortion was a very 
rare procedure only performed in the direst of emergencies. That was 
not true. The fact is there are some people in this country who are so 
radical and extreme in their defense of abortion that they are willing 
even to lie to defend this violent kind of act.
  Five years ago, the executive director of the National Coalition of 
Abortion Providers told the New York Times that he had lied about how 
often partial-birth abortions are performed, lied about how healthy the 
mothers were, and lied about the viability of the children who were 
needlessly killed and, in fact, he said he ``lied through his teeth.'' 
His words, not mine.
  More often than not, this is a baby that would have every chance of 
surviving if it were delivered normally, and usually the baby has 
developed well beyond the stage where it can feel every bit of pain we 
would feel if we were subjected to the same procedure. We have heard 
the horrific procedure described here on the floor.
  Understand that the baby is given no anesthetic or painkiller of any 
kind. Imagine being stabbed in the back of the neck with a pair of 
scissors. Imagine how it must hurt. That is how much it hurts the baby.
  All of this is done, Mr. Speaker, and it is perfectly legal today in 
the United States. Legal, yes; necessary, never. No partial-birth 
abortion is ever medically necessary, according to the best medical 
experts in America.
  The vast majority of the American people want this barbaric, violent 
procedure to be illegal. Vote for banning the partial-birth abortion 
procedure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  This bill is an affront to all women, and it is an insult to the 
medical profession, and it violates the Constitution.
  Abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure in this 
country, and this bill flatly aims to take away that right. It does not 
aim to ban a single procedure that proponents of this bill like to call 
partial-birth abortion. If it did, the sponsors of this bill would have 
accepted medical language that actually describes a medical procedure, 
but they rejected this language.
  Instead, the proponents chose to play doctor and describe a so-called 
medical procedure in their own words. This bill does not even ban what 
some may call late-term abortion because it never specifies a point in 
the pregnancy after which an abortion is banned.
  What this bill really does is chip away at Roe v. Wade which 
established the constitutional right of women to control their own 
bodies. The proponents of this bill do not trust women to make their 
own decisions about their reproductive health. They do not trust women 
to talk to their doctors about their health, about their choices, and 
then make their own informed decisions. They do not want to give women 
the power and freedom to make their own decisions about their 
reproductive lives, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has 
repeatedly upheld this right in the face of countless challenges.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, a society can be measured by how well--or poorly--it 
treats the most vulnerable in its midst, and partial-birth abortion, 
like all abortions, is a horrific violence against women and violence 
against vulnerable little boys and girls.
  Mr. Speaker, 30 years after Roe v. Wade, I believe it is time for a 
serious reality check and a compassion check. Mr. Speaker, abortion on 
demand has claimed the lives of more than 42 million children and 
although grossly underreported, has resulted in death, injury and 
emotional trauma to women. Forty-two million babies have disappeared 
off the face of the earth--slaughtered by abortion. Look at it this 
way. Yankee Stadium holds about 57,500 people. If we filled Yankee 
Stadium to capacity with children slated for execution, we would fill 
that stadium every day for 730 days. Perhaps this to give us some idea 
of the magnitude of the loss of life--42 million dead. It is of 
genocidal proportions.
  Abortion methods, Mr. Speaker, are violence against children. 
Abortion methods dismember and chemically poison children. There is 
absolutely nothing compassionate or benign about dousing a baby with 
superconcentrated salt solutions or lethal injections or hacking them 
to pieces with surgical knives, and there is absolutely nothing 
compassionate or caring about sucking a baby's brains out with partial-
birth abortion. It is child abuse.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, because of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and because of the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Chabot) 
human rights legislation and their courage in proposing it, we can stop 
some of this violence.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we inform America that a partial-birth abortion 
is gruesome and includes pulling a living baby feet first out of the 
womb and into the birth canal, except for the head, and it is there the 
abortionist jams the baby's head with the scissors for the purposes of 
creating a hole in the back of the head. Then that baby has his or her 
brains sucked out with a high powered vacuum.
  Why is that deed--that act, compassionate? I say to my colleagues, 
and you can snicker and laugh all you want. It is violence against 
children. It is violence and you my colleagues are sanctioning it, and 
only because of this legislation do we have an opportunity to save at 
least some of these children from this terrible, horrific 
``procedure.''
  Mr. Speaker, in 1998 a 6-pound baby girl known as Baby Phoenix was 
born with a skull fracture and lacerations on her face after the 
abortionist, Dr. John Biskind, unsuccessfully attempted to perform a 
partial birth abortion on her 17-year-old mother. Baby Phoenix survived 
that murder attempt. There was a lot of controversy abut that abortion 
and do my colleagues know what the controversy was about? That the 
abortionist miscalculated the baby's age rather than

[[Page H5366]]

the horrific, horrible violence that was visited upon that baby. That 
baby survives but carries those scars. Let us be reminded of Baby 
Phoenix--the lucky one who survived--and all those others who did not.
  This is human rights legislation. I have been in Congress 22 years. I 
do a lot to combat torture. I chair the Commission for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. I have written two torture victims relief bills 
and many other human rights pieces of legislation including a historic 
antitrafficking law. Partial birth abortion is torture--torture of 
little baby boys and little baby girls, and I am ashamed of my 
colleagues who stand up here and call efforts to stop it, an insult to 
women.
  This procedure is an insult and infinitely more to boys and girls who 
are killed in the womb or partially born. It is an insult and more to 
the mothers who are the co-victims. I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
and against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller).
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of the partial-birth 
abortion ban of 2002. We have been accused of being political with this 
piece of legislation. We have been told that this is an infringement on 
women's rights, and I will tell my colleagues that what this is is an 
infringement on a person's right who is too young to speak, certainly 
too young to vote.
  I believe the life of the unborn child begins at conception, and I do 
believe that every time an abortion occurs, a life is lost. Each year 
over a million babies are slain at the hands of doctors performing 
abortions. Some doctors willingly and routinely kill babies during the 
second and sometimes third trimester.
  We have already heard that this is an excruciatingly painful 
procedure where the doctor violently manipulates the baby's position, 
creating a breech delivery, and then mercilessly stabs through the 
child's skull to remove the baby's brain with a vacuum. This procedure 
is appalling and disturbing, and I feel it is nothing short of murder.
  In response to the Supreme Court's split decision in the Stenberg-
Carhart ruling, this will help give clear guidelines to what is 
considered constitutional and prohibited.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me summarize this bill first on the substance. This bill is 
really simply an attack on the very idea of the woman's right to choose 
to have an abortion, a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the 
United States. It is an appeal to people's emotions, using falsehoods 
and false claims.
  Let me remind my colleagues of several facts. One, there are no 
abortions in this country in the last trimester of pregnancy except to 
save the life, the health of the mother, because that would be illegal.
  Two, the gentleman says that the procedures outlined in this bill are 
never necessary to save the health of the mother, but I would point out 
that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the 
American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association 
in an amicus curiae brief to the Court, cited approval by the Supreme 
Court, concluded ``especially for women with particular health 
conditions, there is medical evidence that D&X procedures may be safer 
than available alternatives.'' The political posturing of Congress is 
no substitute for the medical expertise of doctors.
  The distinguished chairman said there was a moral consensus against 
this procedure, but the fact is when put before the voters in referenda 
in Colorado, Maine and Washington State, voters rejected bans very 
similar to this bill. What moral consensus?
  The Supreme Court has very clearly told us that this bill is 
unconstitutional because despite the rhetoric that this is a late-term 
abortion bill to save fully formed fetuses, the fact is that it bans 
abortions well before viability, and the Supreme Court in Carhart said, 
``Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban the D&X procedure, its 
language makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of 
procedures and therefore imposes an unconstitutional burden on women.''
  The health of the mother. The Supreme Court has told us that for such 
a bill to be constitutional, it must have an exception for the health 
of the mother, and what human being would not want to have an exception 
for the health of the mother? So we destroy her health for an 
ideological reason?
  The findings of the bill that such procedures are never relevant, are 
never necessary for health are political findings, not medical 
findings, as we have noted above, and would be disregarded by the 
Supreme Court, as the Court has told us in the most recent cases.
  By its own terms, because lacking a health exception, this bill would 
sanction grievous bodily harm to a woman rather than let her and her 
doctor do what is necessary in their judgment to safeguard her health 
and her welfare.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. Because it is 
unconstitutional, because it is clearly and facially unconstitutional, 
it can do nothing to avert any of the horrors cited by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and by other supporters of the bill. If the 
supporters wanted, we could enact a bill that would ban late-term 
abortions with an exception for where the life and health of the mother 
is at risk. Such a bill would be constitutional and might accomplish 
something.
  It would not be clearly disingenuous and hypocritical, but the 
sponsors of this bill do not want to do that. They prefer a sham bill.

                              {time}  1800

  They prefer posturing. Instead of doing something, they would rather 
have a lot of emotion against a woman's right to choose. But make no 
mistake, this bill is a sham. It would do nothing. It is 
unconstitutional.
  We should vote against this bill. It is an insult to American women, 
and it is an insult to our collective intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is an important debate 
because it puts before Congress and, thus, the American people whether 
or not there should be a line drawn and whether there should be any 
meaningful and effective restrictions on abortion.
  The partial-birth abortion procedure is barbaric and grotesque, and 
most medical societies, including those that generally oppose 
restrictions on physicians being able to practice any type of medicine, 
have said that there are other types of abortion procedures that would 
be more proper than a partial-birth abortion.
  Let me quote from the committee report. It says, ``The absence of any 
basis upon which to conclude that partial-birth abortions are safe has 
not gone unnoticed by the American Medical Association, which has 
stated that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical 
practice,' '' not an accepted medical practice, and that ``it has never 
been subjected to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice 
development; that the relative advantages and disadvantages of the 
procedure and specific circumstances remain unknown.'' The AMA says it 
is an experimental procedure and that there is no consensus among 
obstetricians about its use.
  The AMA has further noted that ``Partial-birth abortion is broadly 
disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is ethically 
wrong,'' and I repeat, is ethically wrong, ``and is never the only 
appropriate procedure.'' Thus, a select panel convened by the AMA could 
not find any identified circumstance where the partial-birth abortion 
was the only appropriate alternative.
  So, if my colleagues want to do away with partial-birth abortions but 
are talking about a woman's right to choose, there are other 
alternatives, according to the AMA.
  Now, I grant that the AMA does not support the criminal sanctions 
that are contained in this bill against physicians who perform partial-
birth abortions in violation of the law, but they still condemn the 
partial-birth abortion procedure in their statements that they issued 
several years ago when Congress first took this issue up.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is an 
organization that has consistently opposed legal restrictions on 
abortions,

[[Page H5367]]

including the partial-birth abortion ban, has reported a select panel 
convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this, 
meaning the D&X procedure, would be the only option to save the life or 
preserve the health of the woman.
  Now, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom I am sure was very 
strongly supported politically by my colleague from New York, and who 
never voted for restrictions on abortion during his long and 
distinguished career in the other body, said that partial-birth 
abortion is very close to infanticide. I would strike very close. It is 
infanticide, because the difference between a legal partial-birth 
abortion and first degree murder is three inches. Three inches. The 
size of the head, which has not been delivered, where the scissors are 
inserted into the back of the baby's head and the brains are sucked 
out. This is what we want to ban. And this, I think, is supported by 
the vast majority of the American people.
  Now, we have also heard a lot from people who are opposed to this 
legislation; that this always should be something that is in the 
professional opinion of a physician. Well, many of the physicians whose 
professional opinion is requested have an inherent conflict of interest 
because they will charge a fee and make money by saying that this is a 
proper procedure, even though the vast majority of their colleagues say 
it is never a proper procedure and other alternatives are available.
  Finally, we have heard a lot about the Stenberg decision. This is a 
different bill than the law from the Nebraska case that was struck down 
by the Supreme Court. It contains extensive findings by the Congress of 
the United States, which is our right as a legislative body to make. It 
is up to the court to determine whether or not the findings that are 
made by the Congress are valid when it considers the constitutionality 
of this bill, should it be enacted into law, just like it was in the 
province of the court to consider the findings of the district court 
when it struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg decision.
  The doctrine of separation of powers gives us the right to make those 
findings. Those findings are all medically supported by the testimony 
that the Committee on the Judiciary has received since 1995.
  I believe this bill is constitutional. I believe this bill is good 
public policy. But, most importantly, I believe it is our right and our 
duty to stop this grotesque procedure, which is three inches away from 
infanticide.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
4965, the Late Term Abortion Ban Act. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court 
held, by a 5-4 decision, in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska law 
prohibiting later term abortions was unconstitutional. The Court's 
decision makes clear that federal legislation addressing this issue 
must include exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. 
H.R. 4965 ignores this health exception clearly outlined by the Supreme 
Court.
  I am a cosponsor of House Resolution 2702, the Late Term Abortion 
Restriction Act. This legislation would prohibit all abortions after 
fetal viability unless it is in the judgment of the attending physician 
it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The 
Supreme Court concluded in Stenberg v. Carhart that a woman's health 
must remain the physician's primary concern and that a physician must 
be given the discretion to determine the best course of treatment to 
protect women's lives and health. H.R. 2702 will pass constitutional 
scrutiny. In addition, this measure addresses the termination of viable 
fetuses in the late stages of pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are debating a bill ruled 
unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Instead, we should 
be debating and voting on H.R. 2702, a bipartisan measure to ban all 
late term abortions except ``to preserve the life of the woman or to 
avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.''
  Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4965, 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Regardless of whether one is pro-
life or for abortion rights, the partial-birth abortion procedure is 
clearly morally indefensible. While every abortion sadly takes a life, 
a partial-birth abortion takes a baby's life as he/she emerges from the 
mother's womb and while the baby is still in the birth canal. My fellow 
colleagues have described the horrific process with pictures that make 
one sick to his stomach. It is unfathomable that someone could do this 
to another human being, especially a helpless baby.
  Specialists who perform the partial-birth abortion have testified 
there is no medically-accepted use for the partial-birth procedure, and 
that, in fact the procedure itself presents health risks for the 
mother.
  There is talk of including a provision to allow for exceptions when 
the ``mental health'' of the mother is at risk. This is a phony ban. My 
home state of Kansas passed such a bill, which has essentially meant 
that partial-birth abortions are banned unless a woman wants one. I am 
ashamed to report that in Wichita, the infamous late-term abortionist 
George Tiller performed 182 partial-birth abortions in 1999 alone under 
this weak law. That is 182 viable babies who were brutally murdered. We 
cannot allow that to happen.
  Congress has passed a partial-birth abortion ban twice, which 
President Clinton vetoed both times--over the wishes of the American 
people. President Bush strongly supports H.R. 4965 and is looking 
forward to signing a partial-birth abortion ban. 70% of Americans 
believe that partial-birth abortions should be banned. This body that 
is expressly the ``people's House'' needs to listen to the will of the 
people.
  As a father of three beautiful children and a strong defender of 
human life, I am embarrassed that our wonderful country permits 
partial-birth abortions. 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. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned 
about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social-
political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits 
abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our 
careless attitude toward liberty.
  Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or 
contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the 
importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a 
civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed 
on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. 
Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the 
people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised 
Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have 
occurred.
  The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would 
be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the 
several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is 
remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so 
that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus 
helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not 
only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though 
I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I 
fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further 
the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both 
our culture and legal system.
  For example, 14G in the ``Findings'' section of this bill states, ``. 
. . such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will 
draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide 
. . .'' The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the 
fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life 
community? By stating that we are drawing a ``bright line'' between 
abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the 
dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as 
human beings can determine which members of the human family are 
``expendable,'' and which are not.
  The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are 
``expendable,'' leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and 
apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter 
Singer of Princeton, who advocates the ``right'' of parents to choose 
infanticide, as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical 
extension of the ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain 
people are not ``useful'' or ``convenient,'' they should be done away 
with.
  H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a ``distinction'' made by the 
Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which 
established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, 
but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and 
illogical ``distinction,'' I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, 
ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather 
than refutes them as it should.
  Despite its severe flaws, the bill nonetheless has the possibility of 
saving innocent human life, and should therefore be supported. I fear, 
though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the 
opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.
  I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a 
beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at

[[Page H5368]]

the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: ``. . . From here, a 
sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out 
to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of 
justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what 
the founders of this country stood for . . .''
  May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles 
the founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and 
compromise these principles.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4965, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this important legislation.
  I am proud to serve as Co-Chair of the Pro-Life Caucus along with 
Representative Chris Smith. Representative Chris Smith's courageous 
leadership in legislative efforts to boldly and consistently protect 
the un-born is unparalleled. It has been a pleasure to share this 
important Chairmanship with him.
  And as the lead Democratic sponsor of H.R. 4965 I also want to thank 
Representative Chabot for his steadfast leadership on this and so many 
other important pro-life issues.
  Partial-birth abortions are most often performed in the second or 
third trimester and I am particularly troubled by the horrifying 
aspects of late term abortions because there is no doubt that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure inflicts terrible pain upon the baby 
being killed.
  H.R. 4965 not only bans this type of atrocious procedure but imposes 
fines and a maximum of two years imprisonment for any person who 
administers a partial-birth abortion. This gruesome and brutal 
procedure should not be permitted.
  I strongly believe in the sanctity of life and if 80 percent of 
abortions are elective, we must reconsider and re-evaluate the value 
society places on human life. In many cases, this is a cold, 
calculated, and selfish decision.
  This is not a choice issue. This is a life and death issue for an 
innocent child. It is long overdue that this heinous procedure is made 
illegal.
  Although I am a Pro-Life Democrat, I am grateful that we now have a 
Pro-Life President who will sign this critical piece of legislation 
into law. The President's support will abrogate the need for a two-
thirds vote in the Senate--which has proven impossible to attain.
  The prospects for making the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act the law 
of the land have improved greatly. Please vote to end this horrific 
procedure once and for all.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we consider H.R. 4965, the Late Term 
Abortion Ban Act, I would like to clarify what this debate is really 
about.
  We are not debating so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion.
  We are not debating late-term abortion.
  We are debating a broad and unconstitutional attack on a woman's 
fundamental right to protect her life and health, our right to make our 
own decisions--our right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled not simply that women have the 
right to an abortion, but that we have the right to the safest abortion 
procedure available.
  States and Congress cannot place an undue burden on a women's right 
to choose, and cannot endanger the life or health of a woman seeking an 
abortion.
  This bill fails on both counts. Its overbroad definition of ``late 
term'' abortion could include some of the most commonly used medical 
procedures for abortion in the second trimester--making it difficult 
for a woman to get an abortion. Its denial of an exception to preserve 
the health of a woman is dangerous. Ample evidence exists that the 
procedures described by my colleagues may be the safest for women with 
certain health conditions.
  If the sponsors of this bill wanted to ban one medical procedure, why 
didn't they use medical terms to describe it?
  If they wanted to ban post-viability abortions, why didn't they 
include a time limit in their bill?
  I can only conclude that this bill is intended--just as the Nebraska 
law struck down by the Supreme Court was--to ban some of the most 
common abortion procedures used, even before a fetus is viable.
  This bill is unconstitutional and it is harmful to women's health. 
Let's keep medical decisions where they belong--in the doctor's office, 
not the House floor.
  Vote no on H.R. 4965.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with strong unequivocal support 
for H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Passage of this act into 
law is long overdue, and I hope the American people--who overwhelmingly 
want this ban enacted--will get their victory in this House today and 
in this Congress. Time and a gain we hear the myths and propaganda that 
this barbaric procedure is necessary to somehow protect women. But what 
do doctors and experts have to say about the procedure?
  The head of National Coalition of Abortion Providers in 1997 said 
that the ``vast majority'' of partial-birth abortions are performed on 
healthy babies and healthy mothers.
  The American Medical Association, regarding legislation to ban 
partial-birth abortions, wrote ``Thank you for the opportunity to work 
with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good 
medicine.''
  The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for the Truth (PHACT) stated, 
``Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather such 
infants are regularly and safely delivered live . . . with no threat to 
the mother's health or fertility.''
  Lastly, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop issued a statement 
that not only is the procedure never medically necessary for mother or 
child but ``on the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant 
threat to both.''
  We also know now that the infant feels tremendous pain, contrary to 
prior statements by pro-abortion groups. Yet these same organizations 
would have us believe that this grisly procedure is actually 
necessary--this same procedure where an infant, in the late second or 
third trimester, is removed from the mother's uterus save only his or 
her head, and then an abortionist pierces the skull and vacuums the 
brain, collapsing the skull.
  Allowing any procedure as gruesome as this is simply unacceptable to 
me, and should be so for this Congress. The American people have spoken 
loudly and clearly on this issue. This ban has passed the House of 
Representatives in the past, and we should do so here again today. This 
legislation before us is carefully crafted to address concerns of the 
Supreme Court. President Bush has indicated that he will sign this 
much-needed legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban, and let's hope that it's the last time we have to fight for this 
common sense legislation.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4965, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that my home state of 
Nebraska's ban of this grisly procedure was unconstitutional. Justice 
Scalia wrote in his dissent that ``the notion that the Constitution 
prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of 
eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.'' He 
further noted that even ``the most clinical description of [a partial-
birth abortion] evokes a shudder of revulsion.''
  H.R. 4965 contains several provisions to address the Court's 
concerns. A partial-birth abortion is more clearly defined to 
distinguish it from the ``dilation and evacuation'' procedure used to 
end early-term pregnancies. The bill also contains extensive Findings 
of Fact based on years of Congressional hearings and testimony. They 
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that partial-birth abortion is 
unrecognized by the mainstream medical community, never necessary to 
preserve the health of the mother, and may in fact harm her health.
  I sincerely hope these changes will withstand the scrutiny of the 
Court. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to end the barbarism 
of partial-birth abortion once and for all and protect children who are 
just inches away from taking their first breath.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4965, I rise in strong 
support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. By passing this 
legislation we will once again take a step towards banning the truly 
horrifying practice whereby an innocent life is taken in the most 
gruesome of procedures.
  Used in second and third trimester abortions, the ``partial-birth'' 
procedure involves pulling some portion of the fetus into the birth 
canal, crushing the skull and killing the fetus, before removing the 
fetus from the mother's body.
  Congress passed legislation in each of the last three Congresses 
banning partial-birth abortions. In the 104th and 105th Congresses, 
President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion bans. Both times 
the House voted to override the veto, but the Senate sustained it.
  This bill makes it a federal crime for a physician, in or affecting 
interstate commerce, to perform a so-called partial birth abortion, 
unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Under this 
legislation, anyone who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
would be subject to fines and up to two years in prison. The bill 
provides that a defendant could seek a hearing before the state medical 
board on whether his or her conduct was necessary to save the life of 
the mother and those findings may be admissible at trial.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very 
important legislation. By passing H.R. 4965 today, we will take a giant 
step towards protecting innocent babies who, through no fault of their 
own, never have a chance.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that today the 
Republican leadership ignored an opportunity to resolve the issue of 
late-term abortion in an effective and constitutional way, moving 
forward yet again with a ban that does not include an exception to 
protect the health of the woman. The Supreme Court has spoken on this 
matter. Banning this

[[Page H5369]]

procedure without such an exception is unconstitutional. Repeatedly on 
the Floor of this House an alternative that contains this crucial 
exception has been offered, and repeatedly I have voted for it. That a 
ban would be before us today without that exception can only mean that 
the Republican leadership wants a political issue more than an 
effective law. I would hope that any future consideration of this 
legislation would not suffer from such a flaw.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4965, 
the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2002.''
  Since Congress last voted on this issue two year ago, the U.S. 
Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the Nebraska law making it a 
crime to perform so-called ``partial birth abortions'' was 
unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women's decision 
to end a pregnancy and it lacked the constitutionally required 
exception to protect women's health.
  In spite of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings, the ``Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban of 2002'' fails to include heath exceptions for women and 
imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose an abortion 
procedure.
  The difficult and personal medical decisions made by a woman, her 
families and her medical doctors should not be influenced by the 
agendas of politicians. A free people must assume responsibility to 
make vital decisions involving them; and not allow their decisions to 
be made by the federal government.
  While I remain concerned about the number of abortions in America 
today, I continue to fully support the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I 
will also continue to strongly support programs that can reduce the 
number of abortions worldwide. These include domestic and international 
family planning programs, age-appropriate education programs and 
increased availability of adoptive services.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4965, the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act, I believe the Congress must act now to pass 
this important bill. We should not allow the heinous killing of a 
partially delivered baby to be lawful any longer.
  In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby 
feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the 
head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the 
cervix. The abortionist then punctures the base of the skull with a 
surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed 
hollow metal tube called a trochar. He or she then inserts a catheter 
into the wound and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction 
machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist 
completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.
  H.R. 4965 would ban performance of this abhorrent procedure except if 
it were necessary to save a mother's life. It 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 of the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech 
presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the naval is outside the 
body of the mother,'' and then kills the baby. The bill would permit 
use of the procedure if ``necessary to save the life of a mother whose 
life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused 
by or arising from the pregnancy itself.''
  According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, partial-birth abortions are performed 
3,000 to 5,000 times annually, usually in the fifth and sixth months of 
pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. It has also been used 
to perform abortions as late as in the third trimester, which is the 
seventh month and later. Many of these babies are old enough to live, 
and many of them are developed enough to feel the pain of this 
horrendous procedure.
  The Congress has voted to ban partial-birth abortions twice, only for 
the ban to be vetoed both times. We must pass H.R. 4695 now to ensure 
that partially delivered babies are protected and that the awful 
procedure used to perform partial-birth abortions is banned under law.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I find the 
practice of partial-birth abortion extremely disturbing. This is a 
gruesome practice where the abortionist delivers the entire child 
except the head. The head is left in the mother's womb until the 
abortionist kills the child by puncturing the back of the child's neck. 
If the baby's head were three inches further out of the birth canal, 
this practice would be recognized as murder under our court system.
  ``Critics of a partial-birth abortion ban have asserted that the ban 
could endanger the life and/or health of the mother, but such is not 
the case. Even the American Medical Association has said that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure is `not good medicine' and is `not 
medically indicated' in any situation.
  ``Congress has approved legislation to ban partial-birth abortions in 
the 104th, 105th, and the 106th Congresses with support by scores of 
Members who have never voted pro-life. Even many abortion supporters 
find this practice reprehensible.
  ``President Bush has said that he would sign a bill banning this 
practice. My hope is that the 107th Congress will give the President 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 for him to do just that. I'm 
hopeful that we will soon see progress in ending this gruesome 
practice. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today and vote for 
this ban.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill before us today, H.R. 
4965, which would ban late-term abortions. Congress has no business 
substituting its judgment for families in cases that may jeopardize not 
just the health, but the life of the mother, and a family's ability to 
have a healthy child in the future. I have consistently opposed efforts 
by politicians in Congress to play politics with the most difficult and 
personal decisions a family can face.
  Access to this procedure helps ensure a woman's health and her 
constitutional rights. It is the safest and most commonly used type of 
abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. In fact, the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recognized that it ``may 
be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance 
to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.''
  Today's bill also fails to address a ruling in June 2000 by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, which struck down a Nebraska ban on late-term abortions 
in the case Stenberg v. Carhart. The Court invalidated the Nebraska law 
because it did not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, 
and it placed an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose. Now, 
two years later, the House of Representatives is once again moving 
forward with a similar unconstitutional ban. The only substantive 
change in today's bill is the addition of a lengthy ``findings'' 
section that does not correct the blatant constitutional defects.
  The timing of this debate and procedures used to bring it to the 
floor suggest that the anti-choice House Republican leadership is 
playing anti-abortion politics rather than having a serious legislative 
discussion. I disagree with the unfair closed rule that the Republican 
Leadership has set for debate on this bill because it denies pro-choice 
lawmakers the opportunity to offer amendments or substitute legislation 
to address the constitutional defects of the legislation.
  Not everyone would make the same decision when faced with the 
wrenching decision of choosing between this procedure and the life of a 
loved one, but it is wrong for Congress to make that choice for 
American families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the unfair rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4965, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. This legislation would ban a 
gruesome procedure that kills a child who is just inches from birth. I 
will not go into the details of this cruel procedure. What I will 
mention, however, is that numerous medical experts have testified that 
fetuses are able to fully feel pain after 20 weeks of development, the 
time at which most partial birth abortion procedures occur.
  Some have questioned the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion 
bans. This legislation, however, clearly addresses questions that have 
surrounded previous bans in two key ways. First, H.R. 4965 narrowly 
defines what constitutes a partial-birth abortion. Second, this 
legislation deals with the question of health exemptions. H.R. 4965 
presents extensive Congressional findings, based on the testimony of 
experts, that partial-birth abortions are never needed to save the life 
of the mother and that they often pose serious health risks to women.
  Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association has concluded that 
partial-birth abortions are ``not an accepted medical practice.'' Yet, 
this cruel practice continues to take place. Congress has twice passed 
legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. Unfortunately, both times 
the legislation was vetoed by President Clinton.
  The time for Congress to act on this issue is here. President Bush 
has said that he would sign a ban on partial-birth abortions. Mr. 
Speaker, we finally have an opportunity to put in place a ban that 
protects the most innocent of our society--I urge passage of the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as a physician I must stand against H.R. 
4965.
  This bill bans a legitimate medical procedure and jeopardizes the 
lives of thousands of childbearing women. Supporters of H.R. 4965 claim 
to ban only a certain kind of abortion procedure that they happen to 
find offensive. However, the language of the bill is purposefully vague 
and would ban multiple types of abortion procedures. Further, this bill 
fails to provide a viability line for the fetus, so certain abortions 
that occur during the first two trimesters would be prohibited.

[[Page H5370]]

  In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled on Carhart v. Stenberg. It decided 
that any ban on so-called ``partial birth abortions'' must contain an 
exception for the mother's health. But this bill does not provide any 
exception to protect the health of the mother.
  This is the fifth time in seven years that the Congress has 
considered this legislation. H.R. 4965 is merely used as a political 
instrument to inflame the abortion debate through heated and graphic 
rhetoric. Republican leadership has brought this bill before the House 
in an effort to grossly mischaracterize abortions in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I can tell that it must be the silly season again, 
because this bill is about nothing other than election-year politics.
  Several reputable medical organizations including the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical 
Women's Association oppose this ban. Even the American Medical 
Association has withdrawn their support. We should not be interfering 
with the very personal, ethical, and medical decisions made between a 
patient and a doctor.
  The Supreme Court specifically recognizes a woman's right to choose a 
safe abortion under the principles of Roe v. Wade and I will not 
support any bill designed to erode that fundamental right.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today in the House 
of Representatives to pass H.R. 4965, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act of 2002. This legislation will outlaw the deplorable procedure 
known as partial-birth abortion.
  This issue is important to my state of Georgia, where in 1997, then 
Governor Zell Miller signed the ban on partial birth abortion into 
state law. This body has garnered nearly 300 supporters for each of the 
four separate times we have had the opportunity to cast votes on this 
important matter.
  The American Medical Association concludes that partial-birth 
abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' while a wealth of 
other medical research shows this procedure is never medically 
necessary.
  This is not a partisan issue, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan the 
retired Democratic Senator from the State of New York, known for giving 
voice to the public conscience, compared the procedure to murder by 
stating, ``It is as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon 
in our judiciary.'' I agree with Senator Moynihan, partial-birth 
abortion is brutal and ruthless and must be banned. It is a disgrace 
that this reckless disregard for innocent young life is permitted here 
in United States of America.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4965 and I remain 
hopeful that we will be able to outlaw this despicable procedure once 
and for all.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4965, 
``The Partial Birth Abortion Ban.''
  Today's debate on this issue is offensive. It's an insult to millions 
of women in this country and political grandstanding at its worst. For 
each of the past three sessions of Congress, the House has debated and 
passed this bill. It has never become law. The Supreme Court has 
already ruled this type of ban to be unconstitutional having struck 
down an almost identical Nebraska law.
  The truth is ``partial birth abortion'' is a political term, not a 
medical one. Republicans have included a fuzzy definition in this bill 
that could take away protected representative freedoms. At best, they 
would ban what is almost always an emergency procedure performed to 
protect the health of a mother.
  This is highly personal decision--and an emotionally difficult one--
that is best left to a woman and her doctor. Congress shouldn't tie the 
hands of physicians by making it illegal for them to make sound medical 
decisions that could save their patient's life. This should not be a 
political issue!
  We ought to be respectful of the deeply personal tragedies involved. 
Instead, Republicans exploit them for political purposes. They 
jubilantly jump on this issue like it's a new Tonka truck at Christmas, 
when they ought to consider what this experience is like for the women 
involved. They ought to think about the real facts, not just the 
extreme rhetoric and gory pictures on the latest Christian Coalition 
voting card.
  Most of the women involved are expectant mothers that encounter 
medical difficulties near the end of their pregnancy and must undergo 
this painful, but safe procedure to save their life. Others are the 
victims of sexual assault who often don't come to terms with their 
pregnancy until well into the second trimester. Imagine the painful 
process of determining whether you will bear the child of someone who 
has raped and assaulted you. These women have a right to make this 
choice. This bill provides no exemption for this basic freedom.
  Indeed, this bill is yet another deceptive hoax in a protracted 
assault against the rights of women and all Americans. We must never 
let the right to choose be taken away just as we must never allow 
another back alley abortion to ever take place in this country again. I 
urge my colleagues to stand up for the freedom to choose and vote no on 
this cynical and senseless bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act. I urge colleagues to join me in voting 
decisively in support of this legislation, as we have in the past two 
Congresses. As a civilized society founded on respect for life, we 
cannot allow this cruel and dehumanizing procedure to continue.
  In these abortions, healthy infants who could survive are brutally 
killed just a breath away from birth. Although the consensus in the 
medical community is that this procedure is never necessary to save the 
life of the mother, this bill does include that exception to the ban.
  On many issues that we debate in this body, there are shades of gray 
and room for honest disagreements on principle and substance. But on 
this issue, there is no question. There are no shades of gray. Partial 
birth abortions are acts of evil, pure and simple. They turn the 
wonder, the miracle, of the birth of a human being into a terrible 
travesty of horrible death and suffering.
  Yesterday, the President and Mrs. Bush announced an adoption 
initiative to extend the welcome of family to a vulnerable child. Isn't 
it sadly ironic that we are here today, actually arguing about banning 
a procedure that dashes the hopes of childless couples for an infant to 
love and nurture.
  The greatness of nation is judged not only by the size of its armies 
or the strength of its economy, but also by the way it treats its most 
vulnerable and frail. In the name of simple human decency and of our 
belief in all this nation must stand for, I call on this body to ban 
this procedure.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4965, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban act.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting innocent human life is a preeminent concern 
of mine. I am opposed to abortion and the gruesome partial birth 
abortion procedure in particular.
  I am as strong an advocate as there can be against the killing of 
unborn children. As Democratic Whip of the Congressional Bipartisan 
Pro-Life Caucus, I work closely with my colleagues to stress the 
importance of passing pro-life legislation such as H.R. 4965, which we 
are considering today.
  Abortion is wrong. Partial birth abortion is the cruelest form of 
torture and we must put an end to it now, today!
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 4965, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is 
unconstitutional and will jeopardize the health of women.
  This so-called ``partial birth'' abortion ban is part of a political 
scheme to sensationalize the abortion debate. The truth is that the 
phrase ``partial birth abortion'' is a political term, not a medical 
term. ``Partial birth'' abortion bans have never been about banning one 
procedure, nor about late term abortions. They are deceptively designed 
to be intentionally vague in the attempt to ban abortion entirely. This 
bill opens the door for legislators to ban even more safe abortion 
procedures.
  H.R. 4965 is neither designed, nor written to ban only one procedure, 
and it deliberately lacks any mention of a viability time line, 
therefore is applicable through out the pregnancy. These bans are 
deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade. We 
cannot sit back and watch the reproductive rights of women in America 
disappear.
  This bill bans a variety of safe and common abortion procedures, both 
before and after viability, therefore imposing an undue burden on women 
seeking access to abortion services. This abortion restriction would, 
without exception, force women to use riskier methods of abortion.
  But perhaps the strongest argument against this bill is that it 
ignores a constitutionally required exception to protect women's 
health. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in the Carhart v. Stenberg case 
that women are entitled to medical procedures that are found safest for 
their individual health. The Supreme Court stated unequivocally that 
every abortion restriction must contain a health exception that allows 
an abortion when ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the 
preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' Anti-choice 
lawmakers have ignored this constitutional right, and refused to 
include into their legislation an exception to protect women's health.
  H.R. 4965 unduly interferes with the doctor-patient relationships by 
giving Congress the ability to punish physician and put patients at 
risk. The American Medical Association, one the largest and most 
politically active groups of physicians in the U.S., who in the past 
has often supported abortion bans, withdrew their support on this bill. 
The following is a statement that was released by the AMA, ``The 
physician must retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting 
within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest 
of the patient.''

[[Page H5371]]

  Along with the American Medical Association many other medical 
organizations oppose this legislation, including the American Medical 
Women's Association, American Nurses Association, American Public 
Health Association, American College of Nurse Practitioners, American 
Medical Student Association, and the Association of Schools of Public 
Health, to name only a few. These organizations have recognized that it 
would endanger women's health and inappropriately interfere with 
medical decision-making. These groups have implored Congress not to 
intrude into decisions that are more appropriately made by women and 
their families, in consultation with their physicians. Their medical 
judgment should not be ignored.
  For the safety and the constitutionally required right of women, I 
urge you to vote in opposition to H.R. 4965.
  Mr. WATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2002.
  This is an issue that has opened the eyes of many Americans. The 
rhetoric of ``choice'' is turned on its head when a procedure as 
barbaric as partial-birth abortion is the subject.
  When the Democrat leadership discussed the schedule of the House here 
on the Floor last week, it was amazing to hear the term ``partial-birth 
abortion'' partially uttered, then quickly changed to words softening 
the reality of the procedure we are debating today. To describe 
partial-birth abortion as a ``certain late-term abortion,'' as many 
members of the media also do, is factually incorrect. Partial-birth 
abortions are performed as early as twenty weeks into the life of an 
unborn child. The devil is always in the details, which is why you will 
hardly ever hear the fact that thirty-six percent of all abortions in 
American are on children of African descent.
  Those who oppose a ban on partial-birth abortion often admit the 
procedure is gruesome, yet defend it because they believe it is 
necessary when a baby deemed imperfect is about to be born. But we must 
step back and ask ourselves what authority we have to decide who gets 
to live and who becomes a casualty of choice. The quality of life of an 
unborn child or an elderly Americans is just as valuable as the life 
enjoyed by members of Congress.
  Let me propose the following scenario to you.
  You are a doctor who has been contacted by a patient--a woman in her 
early thirties. After you examine her medical history, you discover she 
suffers from tuberculosis. She is not well. Her husband has syphilis--
and it is possible she has also contracted the deadly disease.
  This lady previously gave birth to four children, three of whom are 
still living. One is blind and two are deaf. She asks you about 
terminating this pregnancy with an abortion. You consider her health, 
her previous births and the state of her children.
  What would do yo do?
  Well, if you said, ``have an abortion,'' you just killed Beethoven.
  Mister Speaker, all life is precious. All life is sacred. And under 
the Declaration of Independence of the United States, all Americans are 
endowed by our Creator and have been given an unalienable right to 
life.
  Partial-birth abortion represents the antithesis of civility. It is 
an insult to humanity. And an overwhelming majority of Americans think 
it has no place in our country.
  This legislation is practical, warranted and, I believe, 
constitutional. I urge my colleagues to support the bill so the 
legalized version of infanticide known as partial-birth abortion will 
never again take the life of an innocent, precious baby in our great 
nation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we are here today, 
considering a ban on so-called ``partial-birth abortions'' for the 
eighth time in seven years, because the proponents of this bill want to 
overturn Roe v. Wade.
  This ban is not about outlawing one method of abortion--it's about 
access to safe abortion methods used throughout pregnancy. It's not 
about post-viability abortion--it's about the right of all women to 
choose.
  It's about Roe v. Wade. And those who support this ban--much as I 
respect their convictions--do not want Americans to hear that because 
they know Americans support to right to choose.
  Roe v. Wade guaranteed that right to choose by expressing three very 
important values that make sense and have been widely accepted by the 
American people.
  First, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is private and personal, 
and should be made by a woman and her family without undue interference 
from the government. At the earliest point in pregnancy, the government 
has no place in this process. Therefore, a state cannot ban access to 
abortion before fetal viability, the point at which a fetus can live 
outside of the woman.
  Second, a woman must never be forced to sacrifice her life or damage 
her health in order to bring a pregnancy to term. The woman's life and 
health must come first and be protected throughout pregnancy.
  Third, determinations about viability and health risks must be made 
for each woman by her physician. A blanket government decree on medical 
determinations is irresponsible, offensive, and dangerous.
  Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart--which 
confirmed these principles--H.R. 4965 clearly rejects each of these 
values.
  The Court made clear that a ``partial birth abortion'' ban was 
extreme and dangerous because it limited safe options for women and 
failed to protect the health of women. Yet the bill before us contains 
no mention of fetal viability, no protection for the health of the 
woman, and leaves no role for the physician treating a woman. The 
government makes all the decisions.
  The proponents of the bill may deny it, but their tireless efforts to 
ban so-called ``partial birth abortions'' is in fact a calculated, 
nationwide effort to undermine support for Roe v. Wade. Please do not 
be fooled by today's charade, this is just another attempt to make 
abortion illegal.
  My colleagues, we believe that women matter. We believe their lives 
are irreplaceable and worth protecting. That is why we oppose this ban.
  I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land by supporting the 
values in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart--let's leave decisions in 
the hands of families and protect the health of women. Vote against 
this terrible harmful bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 498, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BALDWIN. Yes, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Baldwin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4965 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       In section 3, of the bill, in proposed new section 1531 of 
     title 18, in subsection (a), strike ``that is necessary'' and 
     all that follows through ``itself.'' and insert ``where it is 
     necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the 
     preservation of the life or health of the mother.''.

  Ms. BALDWIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion 
to recommit be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her 
motion.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit 
with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), that 
would provide an exception in order to protect the health of the 
mother.
  The families that are affected by this bill are dealing with the 
tragic circumstances of crisis pregnancies. In most cases, they have 
just learned that their babies will not survive. They are then 
confronted by choices that none of us would wish upon any human being. 
This is the context and these are the circumstances under which this 
legislation comes into play. And any suggestion to the contrary 
deceives the American public about the realities of this issue.
  The experiences that families face with crisis pregnancies are real. 
Their stories demonstrate the need for this exception to protect the 
health of the mother. Kathy and Chris, from Wisconsin, were married and 
were excited when they found out that Kathy was pregnant 6 years ago. 
They received the best prenatal care for their baby, and the pregnancy 
seemed to be going fine. She was over 6 months along when they went to 
their doctor to have an ultrasound and discovered that their baby was 
developing with no brain. There was a tumor in the baby's brain cavity 
and other factors that would compromise and jeopardize Kathy's health. 
Her doctor recommended that she have an abortion.

[[Page H5372]]

  Imagine the pain of these parents who so much wanted to have this 
child. Tragically, their doctor could not locate a provider in 
Wisconsin, so they also had to travel over a thousand miles to 
Colorado. After extensive tests, the doctor in Colorado determined that 
this procedure was medically necessary to protect Kathy's health. 
Because of the stigma associated with this procedure, neither Chris nor 
Kathy even told their parents that they had to have this procedure. But 
now she is speaking out because she believes that women must know that 
when they are faced with an extremely dangerous pregnancy, they deserve 
the right to protect their own health.
  Typically, women who must face this decision want nothing more than 
to have a child and are devastated to learn that their baby would not 
survive outside the womb. In consultation with their doctors and 
families, they make difficult decisions to terminate pregnancies, to 
preserve their own health, and, in many cases, to preserve their 
ability to have children in the future.
  This was the case for Kathy and Chris, who, because they took steps 
to terminate her first pregnancy, now have a beautiful 4-year-old son, 
Frederic. How can we look a woman like Kathy in the eye and tell her 
that she cannot have a safe procedure that would preserve her health 
and give her the best chance to have children in the future? Our 
compassion alone should be sufficient to justify a health exemption.
  But if my colleagues need more ammunition, the U.S. Supreme Court has 
made it clear that such an exemption is constitutionally required. In 
Stenberg v. Carhart, the court, in striking down a Nebraska statute, 
held that it was unconstitutional because there was no health exception 
for the mother. The language in this motion is taken directly from that 
Supreme Court's ruling.
  My colleagues, denying a maternal health exemption is wrong and it is 
unconstitutional. If this bill passes today without the adoption of 
this motion, women who are already dealing with the tragic consequences 
of a crisis pregnancy will have their health put in serious danger.
  I urge Members to support this motion to recommit on behalf of Kathy, 
on behalf of all which women who have faced this most difficult 
decision, and on behalf of Frederic and all the children who have been 
brought into this world because their mothers had access to safe 
abortions, including this procedure, and were able to have children 
again.
  Vote for this motion to recommit to preserve the life and health of 
women.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, as the cochair of the 
Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, I would like to extend my thanks and 
the thanks of the caucus to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for bringing 
this motion to recommit, and also to the gentleman from New York for 
managing the time on the bill, and the entire Committee on the 
Judiciary for their tireless work.
  Our view is this: Given Stenberg v. Carhart, we need to decide are we 
going to pass a constitutional bill or not. This motion makes it 
constitutional. We urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I join her in offering this motion to 
recommit.
  Let me simply state that in the State of Texas, where then-Governor 
Bush, now President Bush, presided, included in the provision of their 
ban on this procedure was an exemption for the health of the woman. 
This is all that we are asking for today. This is a medical procedure, 
and the only time this is done is when it is needed to save the life or 
the health of the mother.
  Let us vote for this motion to recommit in order to be consistent 
with the Supreme Court decision in Stenberg.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  This motion to recommit should be opposed for several reasons. The 
overwhelming weight of the evidence compiled in a series of 
congressional hearings indicates that partial-birth abortions are never 
necessary to preserve the health of a woman and, in fact, pose 
substantial health risks to women undergoing the procedure.
  No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted, 
nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its 
safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. There have been 
no articles published in any peer-reviewed journals that establish that 
partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion 
procedures, nor did the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, Dr. Leroy 
Carhart, or the experts who testified on his behalf, identify even a 
single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion is necessary 
to preserve the health of the woman.
  In fact, according to Dr. Carhart's own testimony, when he has chosen 
to perform a partial-birth abortion, he has done so based upon the 
happenstance of the presentation of the unborn child and not because it 
was the only procedure that would have preserved the health of the 
mother.
  Dr. Martin Haskell, the physician credited with developing partial-
birth abortions, has testified that he has never encountered a 
situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to 
achieve the desired result. Furthermore, leading proponents of the 
partial-birth abortion acknowledge that it poses additional health 
risks because, among other things, the procedure requires a high degree 
of surgical skill to pierce the infant's skill with a sharp instrument 
in a blind procedure. In other words, they cannot really see what is 
going on.
  Dr. Warren Hearn has testified that he had ``very serious 
reservations about this procedure,'' and that he ``could not imagine a 
circumstance in which this procedure would be the safest.''

                              {time}  1815

  Although he was opposed to legislation banning partial-birth 
abortions, he also stated, ``You really cannot defend it. I am not 
going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But 
I am not going to do it.'' He has also stated, ``I would dispute any 
statement that this is the safest procedure to use.''
  The procedure also poses the following additional health risks to the 
woman: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical 
incompetence as a result of a cervical dilation making it difficult or 
impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to 
term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid 
embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child 
and the footling breech position, a procedure which, according to 
``Williams Obstetrics,'' a leading obstetrics textbook, ``There are 
very few, if any, indications for . . . Other than delivery of a second 
twin''; and a risk of iatrogenic and secondary hemorrhaging due to the 
doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn 
child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act 
which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of 
shock and could ultimately result in maternal death. Let me repeat 
that. Maternal death, mother's death. This also creates a high risk of 
infection should she suffer a laceration.
  Finally, a health exception, no matter how narrowly drafted, gives 
the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial-
birth abortion may be performed; and abortionists have demonstrated 
that they can justify any abortion on this ground. Dr. Warren Hearn of 
Colorado, for example, the author of the standard textbook on abortion 
procedures, who also performs many third-trimester abortions, has 
stated: ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's 
life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' Let me 
repeat that: ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a 
woman's health and could cause grievous injury to her physical 
health.''
  So it is clear, then, that a law that includes such an exception 
would not ban a single partial-birth abortion. A partial-birth abortion 
ban with this so-called health exception is nothing but a sham. It 
would not prevent any partial-birth abortions at all, and our goal in 
this is to protect both unborn children and women in this country by

[[Page H5373]]

once and for all stopping this horrible procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, the 
Chair announces that this 15-minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage, if ordered, followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion 
to suspend the rules and agree to House Current Resolution 188 on which 
further proceedings were postponed on Monday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 241, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     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
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--241

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     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
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     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)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bonior
     Condit
     Knollenberg
     Stearns
     Traficant
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1841

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. ROSS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. TANNER and Mr. HORN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 274, 
noes 151, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                               AYES--274

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn

[[Page H5374]]


     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
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--151

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     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
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     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
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kucinich
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bonior
     Condit
     Cunningham
     Knollenberg
     Phelps
     Stearns
     Traficant
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1849

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 343 concerning partial-
birth abortion, I was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''

                          ____________________