[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E249-E250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF THE ``PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003'' REP. 
                              STEVE CHABOT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE CHABOT

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 13, 2003

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today, on behalf of a bi-partisan coalition, 
I have introduced the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.''
  The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' would ban the 
dangerous and gruesome procedure known as a partial-birth 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. The great majority of these abortions are 
performed on unborn infants from the 20th to the 26th week of pregnancy 
and more often than not on the healthy babies of healthy mothers. The 
``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003'' is similar to the previous bans 
on partial-birth abortion approved by the House in that an abortionist 
who violates the ban will be subject to fines or a maximum of two years 
imprisonment, or both; a civil cause of action

[[Page E250]]

is established for damages against an abortionist who violates the ban; 
and a doctor cannot be prosecuted under the ban if the abortion was 
necessary to save the life of a mother 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.
  A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of 
performing a partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane 
procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. 
Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical 
community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other 
abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored 
procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the 
mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of 
women and in some circumstances, their lives. It is also a medical fact 
that the unborn infants aborted in this manner are alive until the end 
of the procedure and fully experience the pain associated with the 
procedure. As a result, at least 27 states banned the procedure as did 
the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 
104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
  Three years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, however, the United States 
Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban as an 
``undue burden'' on women seeking abortions because it failed to 
include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to 
preserve the ``health'' of the mother. The Stenberg Court based its 
conclusion ``that significant medical authority supports the 
proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would 
be the safest procedure'' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an 
abortion on the trial court's factual findings about the relative 
health and safety benefits of partial-birth abortions--findings which 
were highly disputed. Yet, because of the highly deferential clearly 
erroneous standard of appellate review applied to lower court factual 
findings, the Stenberg Court was required to accept these trial court 
findings.
  These factual findings are inconsistent with the overwhelming weight 
of authority regarding the safety and medical necessity of the partial-
birth abortion procedure--including evidence received during extensive 
legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses--
which indicates that a partial-birth abortion is never medically 
necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a 
woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. In fact, 
a prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth 
abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' and that it has 
``never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical 
practice development.''
  Thus, there exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress 
may conclude that the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' should 
not contain a ``health'' exception, because to do so would place the 
health of the very women the exception seeks to serve in jeopardy by 
allowing a medically unproven and dangerous procedure to go 
unregulated.
  Although the Supreme Court in Stenberg was obligated to accept the 
district court's findings regarding the relative health and safety 
benefits of a partial-birth abortion due to the applicable standard of 
appellate review, Congress possesses an independent constitutional 
authority upon which it may reach findings of fact that contradict 
those of the trial court. Under well-settled Supreme Court 
jurisprudence, these congressional findings will be entitled to great 
deference by the federal judiciary in ruling on the constitutionality 
of a partial-birth abortion ban. Thus, the first section of the 
``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' contains Congress's factual 
findings that, based upon extensive medical evidence compiled during 
congressional hearings, a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to 
preserve the health of a woman.
  The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' does not question the 
Supreme Court's authority to interpret Roe v. Wade and Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey. Rather, it challenges the factual conclusion that 
a partial-birth abortion might, in some circumstances, be the safest 
abortion procedure for some women. The ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 2003'' also responds to the Stenberg Court's second holding, that 
Nebraska's law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions 
because its definition of a ``partial-birth abortion'' could be 
construed to ban not only partial-birth abortions (also known as ``D & 
X'' abortions), but also the most common second trimester abortion 
procedure, dilation and evacuation or ``D & E.'' The ``Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003'' includes a new definition of a partial-birth 
abortion that clearly and precisely confines the prohibited procedure 
to a D & X abortion.
  This bill is not new. This chamber has passed legislation to ban this 
procedure four times and twice, this chamber voted to override the 
President's veto of this bill. Now that we have a President who is 
equally committed to the sanctity of life and who has promised to stand 
with Congress in its efforts to ban this barbaric and dangerous 
procedure, it's time for Congress to act to place this bill in front of 
the President and end this barbaric and dangerous procedure.

                          ____________________