[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.''
____________________