[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4910-H4919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 760, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT
OF 2003
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 257
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
760) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-
birth abortion. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 760, it shall be in order
to take from the Speaker's table S. 3 and to consider the
Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to
strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and
to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 760 as
passed by the House. All points of order against that motion
are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman
[[Page H4911]]
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and
granted a modified closed rule for the partial-birth abortion ban of
2003. This rule makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer). While I personally oppose this amendment, the Committee on
Rules is allowing for fair and open debate on this amendment.
H.R. 760 makes it illegal in the United States for a physician to
perform a partial-birth abortion. As an original cosponsor of this
legislation, I am very pleased to see it finally reach the floor of the
House of Representatives. I also believe that President Bush deserves
the opportunity to put an end to this horrific act of human violence by
signing this legislation into law. I also want to thank my colleagues
on the other side of the Rotunda for passing this important
legislation.
I must tell my colleagues as a mother and grandmother, it is
astonishing to me that this is still even legal in the United States
today, but it is. And as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it
is practiced all too often in this country.
Partial-birth abortion is a procedure where a pregnant woman's cervix
is forcefully dilated over a 3-day time period, and the vast majority
of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy
mothers.
Although language banning this procedure has been struck down in the
past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to
address the Court's concerns. The five-Justice majority in Stenberg v.
Carhart thought that Nebraska's definition of ``partial-birth
abortion'' was vague and could be construed to cover not only abortions
in which the baby is mostly delivered alive before being killed, but
also the more common dilation and evacuation, or D&E method.
H.R. 760 defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which ``the
person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally
delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first
presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother,
or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past
the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of
performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially
delivered living fetus.''
The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the
Court will not reject it; it also draws attention to the violence of
partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be. I am
pleased that we are bringing this to the floor again today.
We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome
constitutional barriers; and I am confident that it will survive
judicial review.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want this bill in overwhelming
numbers, believing in their hearts that we as a Nation are better than
this. We are a better people. To that end I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, considering the rule
for the same unconstitutional bill. I must voice my grave concern with
H.R. 760, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Today
The New York Times says in an editorial, ``Partial Birth Mendacity,''
which means lie, that although promoted as narrowly focused on a single
late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a
sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by
criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first
trimester, but well before fetal viability.
My constituents are facing unemployment. They are losing out on child
tax credit. They need more funding for our first responders, they need
the promised health care for our veterans; but here we are debating a
rule on legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and
threatens women's health.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court struck down
similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures.
They confirmed again a woman's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe
v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
H.R. 760 suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska
statute thrown out by the Court. The ban on medical procedures is vague
and overbroad, and it does not contain an exception from the procedure
ban when a woman's health is threatened. And it goes so far as to give
the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for
money even if he has beaten his wife or rapes her or had threatened her
life or has deserted her. How crazy is that?
Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth
abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is purely a
political creation. The definition of the procedure that H.R. 760 seeks
to ban is written in nonmedical language that could cover at least two
different procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion
procedure. This vague and overbroad definition, which is probably not
by accident, would create so much confusion in the medical community
that doctors would not know which medical procedures might land them in
jail with a huge fine. We should not make our doctors into criminals.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors
who perform these procedures, say that the procedure the bill seeks to
proscribe may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular
circumstance to save the life or to preserve the health of the woman
and only the physician in consultation with the patient and based on
her circumstances can make this decision. The Congress of the United
States has never, ever outlawed a medical procedure. What are we doing
here, and what in the name of God is next?
Medical professionals and every Federal court in the country that has
heard this issue, except for one, have agreed that these are safe
procedures and may be the safest procedures in some circumstances; but
we are going to take that away. And who will suffer for that? The
American women.
Physicians and not politicians and pundits should provide women and
their families with medical advice. I want a doctor to treat my
daughters and granddaughters. Women and their families, not the
government, should make these difficult, private, medical decisions;
and if that is not the case, then every time a procedure is done, there
should be a Member of Congress standing at the door okaying it.
The bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their
patients by outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, something
we have never done. We assume that once they have gone through medical
school, done their internship and their residencies, they ought to know
what they are doing. Congress would subject women to even more
dangerous medical procedures and put their health and lives in
jeopardy. Everybody deserves the best medical care based on the
circumstances of their particular situation.
{time} 1545
Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous for women, we
should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortion by
reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. That is the most
important thing that we could do; and by increasing funding for title
X, to require the insurance coverage of contraception, which we will
not do, making emergency contraception more available, which we are
afraid of, and increasing research for other contraceptive methods.
Indeed, I am not at all sure that after this bill is passed and signed
by the President that the sale of contraceptives will not be in danger.
H.R. 760 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme
Court
[[Page H4912]]
has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when
the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional
findings do not change or fulfill constitutional demands or protect
women's health.
The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most
especially the United States Supreme Court, will defer to these
congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement, but
the Court has unequivocally said that the power to interpret the
Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the judiciary, and the
Court has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does
not, in the Court's opinion, make it true.
Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical
reason for a health exception does not make that true and it does not
change the demand of the Constitution. As Ruth Marcus, writing in the
Washington Post, noted today, ``Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a
different context that if Congress could make a statute
unconstitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom is
slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' Think about
that for a moment. That if Congress could make a statute constitutional
simply by finding that black is white and we were to determine that, or
that freedom and slavery are not different, then why would we have
judicial review?
So why are we today considering a rule for this unconstitutional
bill? Richard Posner, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the
answer. He wrote that proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned
with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an
incidental effect of that opinion may be to discourage late-term
abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than
women's health.''
Judge Posner went on to say that if a statute burdens constitutional
rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle
that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those
rights, then the burden is undue. Those are very important words, Mr.
Speaker. Those are words from jurists and people who know whereof they
speak.
Again Ruth Marcus' article points out that the political agenda is
clear. Ken Connor, who is the president of the conservative Family
Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted on
a measure similar to this last March. ``With this bill,'' he wrote,
``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice
created by Roe v. Wade.
As the mother of three daughters, a grandmother and a longtime
advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a
threat to women's health and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's
constitutional right to choose.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 760.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane
procedure and it is a grave attack against human dignity and justice.
This practice must be banned. The bill before us seeks to do just that.
Life is a gift, and it must be embraced and respected at all stages.
In a country which espouses the importance of protecting the inherent
rights of every person, partial-birth abortion denies the rights of our
most innocent and vulnerable members, our children. We as legislators
must strive to uphold the truths upon which our great Nation was
founded, especially that every individual is entitled to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.
Partial-birth abortion is not a sign that women are ``free to
choose.'' It is a sign that women have been abandoned, that they have
not had the support and care that they so desperately need.
There is increasing evidence, Mr. Speaker, that abortion causes
extreme emotional and psychological damage. We must strive every day to
ensure that each and every person is guaranteed the most basic of human
rights, the right to life. Women deserve better than to endure the
psychological, the physical and the emotional pain and suffering
associated with partial-birth abortion, and children deserve the chance
to live.
It is time for partial-birth abortion to stop. We must have the
courage and the strength to fight against one of the greatest of all
human rights violations, partial-birth abortion.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 760, the partial-birth
abortion ban. A vote for the ban is a vote for life.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional.
The bill before us will not prohibit any abortions. Its supporters
claim it prohibits a procedure, but the abortion will still take place
involving another procedure, and I will not inflame the debate by
describing in detail the alternative procedures that may be used. But I
will point out that Nebraska had a law banning the same procedure.
Nearly 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court held in Stenberg v.
Carhart that that law was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court said five times in its majority opinion and other
times in concurring opinions that in order to make a partial-birth
abortion ban constitutional, the law must contain a health exception to
allow the procedure, quote, ``where it is necessary, in appropriate
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother.'' That is what five Supreme Court justices said was necessary
to make the bill constitutional. All five are still on the Supreme
Court.
In that case, the Court said:
The question before us is whether Nebraska's statute making criminal
the performance of a partial-birth abortion violates the Federal
Constitution as interpreted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v.
Wade. We conclude that it does for at least two independent reasons.
They said the first reason was that the law lacked an exception for
the preservation of the health of the mother. The Stenberg court
reminded us what a long line of cases has held, that, and they say,
``subsequent to viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and
even proscribe abortion,'' and they put this in italics, ``except where
it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation
of the life or health of the mother.''
It goes on to say, in quotes, in case we did not understand the
italics, that the governing standard requires an exception, quote,
``where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the
preservation of the life or health of the mother.''
The Court continues talking about the health exception by saying and
mentions another quote:
Justice Thomas said that ``The cases just cited limit this principle
to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to health.''
He is wrong. The cases cited, reaffirmed in Casey, recognize that a
State cannot subject women's health to significant health risks both in
that context and also where State regulations force women to use
riskier methods of abortion. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated
statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion
imposed significant health risks. They make it clear that the risk to a
woman's health is the same whether it happens to arise from regulating
a particular method of abortion or from barring abortions entirely.
Finally, the Court says:
Nebraska has not convinced us that a health exception is, quote,
``never medically necessary to preserve the health of women.'' Rather,
a statute that altogether forbids the partial-birth abortion creates a
significant health risk. The statute subsequently must contain a health
exception.
And if we did not get it, the Court reiterates again:
``By no means must a State grant physicians unfettered discretion in
their selection of methods. But where substantial medical authority
supports the proposition that banning a particular method could
endanger women's health, Casey requires the statute to include a health
exception when the procedure is, quote, 'necessary in appropriate
medical judgment for the
[[Page H4913]]
preservation of the life or health of the mother.' Requiring such an
exception in this case is no departure from Casey, but simply a
straightforward application of its holding.''
Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of
abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme
Court in one opinion said at least five times that a health exception
must be included for the statute to be constitutional. Furthermore,
they put the exact phrase to be used, ``necessary, in appropriate
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the
mother'' in italics and quotations.
The majority proposes that we consider a bill without this
unqualified health exception. The Court made it clear that such a
health exception is required and, therefore, this rule that requires us
to consider a bill without that exception ought not pass.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to defeat the rule so that we can have a
bill considered with a health exception that might possibly be
constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Statement of Policy from the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which says that
this procedure may be necessary in some circumstances.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of
Policy on Abortion
The following statement in the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) general policy
related to abortion, with specific reference to the procedure
referred to as ``intact dilatation and extraction'' (intact D
& X).
1. The abortion debate in this country is marked by serious
moral pluralism. Different positions in the debate represent
different but important values. The diversity of beliefs
should be respected.
2. ACOG recognizes that the issue of support of or
opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral
conviction to its members. ACOG, therefore, respects the need
and responsibility of its members to determine their
individual positions based on personal values or beliefs.
3. Termination of pregnancy before viability is a medical
matter between the patient and physician, subject to the
physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent
and the availability of appropriate facilities.
4. The need for abortions, other than those indicated by
serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten maternal
welfare, represents failures in the social environment and
the educational system.
The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is
to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancies. This can be
accomplished by open and honest education, beginning in the
home, religious institutions and the primary schools. This
education should stress the biology of reproduction and the
responsibilities involved by boys, girls, men and women in
creating life and the desirability of delaying pregnancies
until circumstances are appropriate and pregnancies are
planned.
In addition, everyone should be made aware of the dangers
of sexually transmitted diseases and the means of protecting
each other from their transmission. To accomplish these aims,
support of the community and the school system is essential.
The medical curriculum should be expanded to include a
focus on the components of reproductive biology which pertain
to conception control. Physicians should be encouraged to
apply these principles in their own practices and to support
them at the community level.
Society also has a responsibility to support research
leading to improved methods of contraception for men and
women.
5. Informed consent is an expression of respect for the
patient as a person; it particularly respects a patient's
moral right to bodily integrity, to self-determination
regarding sexuality and reproductive capacities, and to the
support of the patient's freedom within caring relationships.
A pregnant women should be fully informed in a balanced
manner about all options, including raising the child
herself, placing the child for adoption, and abortion. The
information conveyed should be appropriate to the duration of
the pregnancy. The professional should make every effort to
avoid introducing personal bias.
6. ACOG supports access to care for all individuals,
irrespective of financial status, and supports the
availability of all reproductive options. ACOG opposes
unnecessary regulations that limit or delay access to care.
7. If abortion is to be performed, it should be performed
safely and as early as possible.
8. ACOG opposes the harassment of abortion providers and
patients.
9. ACOG strongly supports those activities which prevent
unintended pregnancy.
The College continues to affirm the legal right of a woman
to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. ACOG is
opposed to abortion of the healthy fetus that has attained
viability in a healthy woman. Viability is the capacity of
the fetus to survive outside the mother's uterus. Whether or
not this capacity exists is a medical determination, may vary
with each pregnancy and is a matter for the judgment of the
responsible attending physician.
Intact Dilatation and Extraction
The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of
abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth
abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted
questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to
respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague
and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the
medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be
interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion
and operative obstetric techniques.
ACOG believes the intent of such legislative proposals is
to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``intact dilatation
and extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been
described as containing all of the following four elements:
1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a
sequence of days;
2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling
breech;
3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a
living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but
otherwise intact fetus.
Because these elements are part of established obstetric
techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four
elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an
intact D & X. Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while
preserving the life and health of the mother. When abortion
is performed after 18 weeks, intact D & X is one method of
terminating a pregnancy.
The physician, in consultation with the patient, must
choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient's
individual circumstances.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States
in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after
the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by
the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on
the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of
these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that
second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe
procedure.
Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances
to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
Intact D & X is one of the methods available in some of
these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could
identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as
defined above, would be the only option to save the life or
preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however,
may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular
circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a
woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient,
based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this
decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting
specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw
techniques that are critical to the lives and health of
American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into
medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and
dangerous.
Approval by the Executive Board. General policy: January
1993. Reaffirmed and revised July 1997. Intact D & X
statement: January 1997. Combined: and reaffirmed September
2000.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering, as has already
been said, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I have joined with 161
Members in cosponsoring this legislation, and I commend the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for bringing forward this legislation. This is
the fifth Congress during which this debate has taken place, four of
which I have been a part of, and I believe an overwhelming majority of
Americans hope this will be the last and that we will pass this bill
and have it sent to the President and signed into law.
I know that it has been repeated time and time again here on the
floor of the House, but this afternoon I think it is important to
remind my colleagues of the details of this deplorable procedure.
Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which the mother's cervix is
forcibly dilated over a 3-day period. On the third day the child is
pulled feet first through the birth canal until his or her entire body,
except for the head, is outside the womb. While the fetus is stuck in
this position, dangling partly out of the mother's body and just a few
inches from taking its first breath, the physician inserts and opens
scissors into the base of the baby's skull, creating a hole in the
baby's head.
The physician then either crushes the baby's skull with instruments
or suctions out the baby's brain. With the head now small enough to
slip through the mother's cervix, the physician pulls the now-lifeless
body the rest of the way out of its mother, and discards the baby's
body as medical waste.
[[Page H4914]]
Today you will hear some supporters of partial-birth abortion claim
this procedure is a critical alternative that must remain legal to
protect women's health. However, the medical profession offers no
support for such claims.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill to protect the most
vulnerable in our Nation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.
The proponents of the bill claim that it addresses partial-birth
abortion, but I think the American people deserve to know what we are
really voting on today. We are voting to limit a woman's access to safe
and accepted medical procedures, restrictions that will subject a woman
to unnecessary risks when she exercises her reproductive right.
We should be promoting a woman's health. We should not be 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 to deliver healthy babies.
Instead, here we are spending our time debating legislation that the
Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has clearly recognized the need for protecting the
health of the mother. Yet the anti-choice lobby has chosen to forge
ahead in their attempts to politicize women's health and chip away at
our constitutional rights.
As terrible as it is to acknowledge, things can go tragically wrong
in the final stages of pregnancy, and in these unimaginable
circumstances, a woman should not be required to risk her health and
future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a
doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the
necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents.
Instead, I want every woman in my district and every woman in the
Nation to have access to whatever procedure she and her physician feel
is safest and the most appropriate way for her to settle and handle the
situation.
Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable,
healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur in the first place.
{time} 1600
Those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of
the mother. So this debate is actually about limiting a woman's right
to choose by restricting access to constitutionally protected medical
procedures.
The American people deserve to know what we are really doing here
today. We are really desperately trying to take away reproductive
choice of every woman in America. I urge my colleagues, do not let this
happen. Oppose the rule, and oppose H.R. 760.
Mrs. MYRICK. 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 am pro-life. I do not apologize for it. I
do not demonize people who hold a different view; but I would say
respectfully to the previous speaker, to the gentlewoman, that this
really is not a debate about a woman's right to choose or the right to
life. It does not really find itself divided in that way. Survey after
survey proves the point.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying
ban on partial-birth abortion because this is just an antiseptic term
for a barbaric procedure. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a
Democratic Senator, said, memorably, partial-birth abortion is ``near
infanticide.''
We can have arguments about this bill, about its constitutionality.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Chabot) has gone to great lengths to
improve this legislation, and we are confident that it is superior to
the Nebraska bill that failed constitutional muster.
We can argue the medicine, and we can argue the facts; but the one
thing that is inarguable is that this practice is inherently, morally
wrong. What is not arguable is that the practice of delivering a
newborn child alive, feet first, holding it in the birth canal
squirming while the back of its head is stabbed with a suction device
is evil. That, Mr. Speaker, is not arguable.
Today we will follow our colleagues at the other end of this building
to take one more step to render that practice unlawful and make that
which virtually every American knows in his heart to be evil and
morally wrong also illegal in America.
Justice has always been defined in this Nation and every society by
how they deal with the innocent and those who do them harm. Of the
innocent and defenseless we are urged to do what we can for the least
of these. Banning partial-birth abortion is the least we can do for the
least of these.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say to
the previous speaker that we know what the agenda is. It was pointed
out today. Kent Connor, the president of the Conservative Family
Research Council spelled it out. He said, ``With this bill we will
dismantle, brick by brick, Roe v. Wade.''
I hope that all of my colleagues are listening in the House, because
this may be the last vote we will have on choice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to this rule and to the underlying bill.
For 30 years, women in this country have had the right to make
reproductive choices over their bodies. H.R. 760 is a horrifying
attempt to seize those hard-earned rights away from women. What this
legislation claims to do is ban a medical procedure used in late term
pregnancies, but it does not. Instead, this bill is drafted in such a
way as to effectively ban a woman's right to choose at any point in her
pregnancy.
Let us be clear: this bill opens the door to outlawing all abortions,
regardless of the circumstances. Furthermore, this bill makes no
exception for cases when a woman's health is in grave danger or when
carrying a no-longer viable fetus to term would jeopardize a woman's
ability to conceive children in the future.
Equally disturbing is the fact that this bill is blatantly
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, when
dealing with restriction on reproductive procedures, an exception must
always be made to protect both the life and the health of the mother.
I cannot support a blatantly unconstitutional bill that tells women
that their health or future reproductive health must be sacrificed, nor
can I support a bill that has a clear ulterior motive of banning a
woman's right to make choices over her own body.
I am pro-choice and believe that the government should stay out of
people's private, personal decisions. I will protect a woman's right to
choose, and so I will vote against this unconstitutional, anti-woman's
rights bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same and to not
slam the door on a fundamental right that women have had in this
country for 30 years.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on
H.R. 760.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this
rule and this bill. I am from Dayton, Ohio; and this bill is incredibly
important to the people of Ohio and my district, and as a result, from
our experience, I believe for the people of this country.
Ohio passed its ban on this horrific procedure known as partial-birth
abortion because the people of Ohio know how inhumane and how unsafe
the practice is. In my district, in Dayton, Ohio, the Women's Medical
Plus Center of Dayton has performed this horrific procedure, despite
the fact that the facility is not properly licensed by the Ohio
Department of Health. It has nothing to do with women's health; it has
nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It has to do with late-term abortions
and killing viable children.
The State Health Department attempted to close the Women's Medical
Plus Center of Dayton, but has been unsuccessful. This bill is an
important first step in protecting women's health from this center.
[[Page H4915]]
A woman 5 months pregnant came to the Women's Medical Plus Center in
Dayton, Ohio, to receive a partial-birth abortion. During the 3 days it
takes to have the procedure, she began to have stomach pains and was
rushed to a nearby hospital. Within minutes, she was giving birth. A
medical technician pointed out that the child was alive, but apparently
the chances of survival from the procedure were slim. After 3 hours and
8 minutes, this baby died. The community named the baby Hope. Hope was
a person, a child, a baby, that fought to retain the life that others
were seeking to end.
Just 6 months after Baby Hope died, another baby in the middle of
this 3-day abortion procedure was born alive in the Dayton, Ohio,
hospital, when her mother went into labor before the abortion could be
completed. The woman was believed to be 26 weeks pregnant. This time,
however, despite the massive trauma of the baby's environment, a
miracle occurred. By grace, this little baby survived, and so she is
now called by the community Grace.
I am appalled by the fact that these heinous partial-birth abortion
attempts occur. Our local paper has indicated most are performed on
healthy women, that most are performed on healthy fetuses.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I am always dismayed by the fact that these fetuses are
described as ``viable.'' That is one of the saddest things in the
world.
I have talked to parents who had this procedure, babies who were in
utero with their brains on the outside, with no lungs, no possibility
of living. Always the notion is given if they were just allowed not to
go through that procedure, they would get down and almost run around
the room.
It is not true. It is not true. The parents who have to go through
this are heartbroken over it, but it is the way they can have further
children. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who
perform these procedures say it may be the best or most appropriate
procedure in a particular circumstance.
What if your wife or your daughter is in a particular circumstance,
and you had voted to outlaw the procedure that would be the best for
her future and her life and maybe even save her life? We have no right
to do that, Mr. Speaker, no right at all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of my fundamental principles is that
government not interfere with the basic freedoms of our families, and a
basic freedom for the health of women includes reproductive health
choices. This legislation threatens that freedom by inappropriately
intervening in the decisions of patients and their doctors.
Late-term abortions are, as has been demonstrated time and again,
accepted medical practice that at times is the only procedure available
to protect a woman's life and her ability to safely have a healthy baby
in the future.
Years ago, when we first started debating this legislation on the
floor of this House, I was struck that while proponents try to horrify
people, I was indeed struck by the real cases of real families that
would be devastated by this amendment, as was pointed out by the
gentlewoman from New York.
This legislation further is part of an insidious ongoing assault to
erode not just reproductive freedoms, but perpetuate a trend as
shocking as it is unfortunate of some in this Congress, imposing their
theology on our citizens, regardless of other people's own strongly
held beliefs and individual needs.
Only weeks ago, this Congress, because of a theological clash with
science, voted to make it illegal to use potentially life-saving
therapies to help with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other degenerative
or traumatic diseases, leaving people crippled and dying. The vote was
not just to deny scientific research here, but deny access to medicines
developed anywhere else. They would make our loved ones suffer in their
zeal to make their point.
People who oppose abortion should not have one. Nothing would make me
happier than for every American woman to have the knowledge, the well-
being, the medical care and the good fortune so that there would never
have to be another abortion. But until such a day comes, it is wrong to
prevent a woman's doctor from offering professional skills so that she
and her family can determine the safest and most appropriate medical
care for their family.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the defense of
the most defenseless population in our society, unborn children.
Specifically, I rise to support the ban on partial-birth abortion.
This procedure is so horrific that no justification can be given for
its continuation. In this procedure, a baby is brought through the
birth canal and just as the baby is about to take his or her first
breath, the child is killed. If this procedure were done just seconds
later, it would be considered murder. I cannot think of a set of
circumstances that would justify this brutal act. To allow the
continuation of this practice is to devalue the sanctity of life
itself.
We cannot allow children, almost born and completely viable outside
of the womb, to be disposed of in such a heartless manner. Our society
is based on the idea that every individual should have the right to
life. I believe that right extends to those who are just about to enter
our world.
I urge my colleagues to help defend those who cannot defend
themselves.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything contradictory to my
friends on the other side who want to make sure these children are
born; but if they are poor, they are not going to get the benefit of
the tax rebate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this measure are so determined to end
safe and legal abortion in this country, no matter what the procedure,
that they are unwilling to consider reasonable amendments that would
protect the health and life of the woman and also would ensure the
constitutionality of the underlying bill.
We will vote shortly to reject the Greenwood-Hoyer-Johnson amendment,
which would permit the particular medical procedure banned by the bill
if the physician determines that it is necessary to spare the woman
from serious adverse health consequences. I understand from the
hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary that supporters of the
bill expressed concern that the term ``health consequences'' could very
well allow the attending physician too much latitude.
But what is fascinating is that another amendment that was proposed
by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), and myself that would have placed even more stringent
restrictions on the use of this particular procedure, permitting it
only to protect the mother from serious adverse physical, and let me
repeat, physical health consequences, was not made in order.
This rule should be defeated, Mr. Speaker, because without the
language that I just enumerated, this bill can put women at risk and
threaten their daughters with prosecution if they care for them in the
way they determine to be medically safe and sound.
{time} 1615
Furthermore, without this language, the bill is susceptible to being
considered by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional again.
Now, why pass an extreme measure that would be found
unconstitutional, rather than accept an amendment that would address
its potential constitutional defects? Perhaps because we are not
serious about enacting a bill into law that passes constitutional
muster, using this bill, if you will, as a perennial political
exercise.
But I would suggest that that is not what we ought to be about. Let
me submit that this bill, as it is presently before this body, is a
disturbing example of legislative excess.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and
[[Page H4916]]
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
For the last decade, thousands of healthy babies have been tortured
and murdered every year through the procedure that is commonly known as
partial-birth abortion. This procedure, which is routinely used during
the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, kills a baby just seconds
before he or she takes that first breath outside the womb.
Mr. Speaker, this congressional body must act now to preserve the
future of the next generation of this Nation, or this Nation will reap
the horrible consequences of allowing partial-birth abortion to
continue.
Some opponents advocate that this bill is in violation of a
fundamental right to an abortion as stated in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker,
they are wrong. Numerous medical practitioners and the American Medical
Association have testified in committee that partial-birth abortion is
never medically necessary in any situation and is severely below the
standard of good medical care. In fact, partial-birth abortion can
threaten the mother's health or her ability to carry future children to
term.
As representatives of the people of the United States, we are charged
with the duty to protect the life and the liberty of the innocent, and
passage of this bill is a prime example of fulfilling that duty.
I urge all my colleagues to remember this duty and vote for H.R. 760.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this has become an all too
familiar moment for me. You see, this is the ninth time in 8 years that
the Republicans have pushed a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion.
Yet I continue to be outraged every year at this leadership's self-
righteous attempt to turn back the clock on women's constitutionally
protected rights, back to the time when women had to leave the country
or risk their lives in dangerous back-alley procedures.
The Supreme Court agrees that medical decisions should be made by the
patient and her doctor and not by a bunch of politicians in Washington
and their special interests. This is why several medical and health
organizations, including the American College of OB-GYNs, oppose this
legislation.
This legislation was wrong 8 years ago, and it is still wrong. It
contains no exception whatsoever for women's health. It simply puts
women's lives at risk. This is a perfect example of how mean-spirited
and extreme this administration can be. This is a direct attack on Roe
v. Wade. But more than that, it is another example in a long line of
this administration's attacks on our rights.
I cannot stand by and watch as one by one this White House and the
leadership in this House chew up our rights and spit them out. I stand
today as a woman and as an American to fight for our constitutionally
protected rights. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on
the underlying bill. Wake up, America.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 760, the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
It is true that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are
performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Dr. James McMahon, one
of the founders of the partial-birth abortion method, in his June 15,
1995, testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, testified that
in a series of about 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed, only 9
percent of those abortions were performed for maternal health reasons.
Of that group, the most common reason given was depression.
It is clear many partial-birth abortion procedures occur for purely
elective or frivolous reasons. He also cited that he performed partial-
birth abortions on babies with no flaws whatsoever, even in the third
trimester, many as late as 29 weeks, well into the seventh month of
pregnancy.
No matter where we stand on the issue of life, most Americans agree
that the brutal and horrific practice of partial-birth abortion must
cease to exist. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 760 and to right the
wrong that has existed for far too long.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in
support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
We are told that most of these partial-birth abortions take place in
the fifth and sixth month. This is the same time that I got to share in
a most wonderful experience, one of the most wonderful experiences of
my lifetime. My son and daughter-in-law invited me to come in for the
ultrasound of my grandbaby.
It was incredible to me as the three of us were in that room and as
the technician went about moving the instrument around on my daughter-
in-law's abdomen what we saw inside of that womb. We saw the profile of
a little boy, a profile that made us realize that he was going to look
much like his father. We saw his little faithful heart beating away. We
saw the little gestures that he made with his hands. As we looked at
that little boy, my daughter-in-law and my son knew what they were
going to name him. They were going to name him after his great
grandfather. I left that and I went out and I bought the little outfit
that that little boy would wear home from the hospital.
May we end this horrible practice in our Nation, where we are endowed
by our Creator of certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Colorado, how happy I am that she had that experience. I am even more
happy that that experience showed that that fetus was in good shape and
would be able to be born and to be healthy.
We are talking today about women who are faced with the fact that the
fetus will not be. I think we are getting astray from that.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 257 is a fair rule that will permit the full House to work
its will on H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This
rule makes in order the Greenwood-Hoyer amendment to H.R. 760 and
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Why is the House debating this legislation yet again? Unfortunately,
the answer to that is those who oppose it have claimed that Congress
has no power to legislate a ban on partial-birth abortion because of
the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart ruling.
Many of these same House Members, however, had no objection to
standing up to the Supreme Court on other issues. For example, 413
House Members voted to ban child pornography even after the Supreme
Court held that the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act was
unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying bill, any taking of
innocent life is wrong. This procedure is demonstrably offensive and
wrong. When a Nation puts people in jail and fines them for destroying
the potential life of an unborn loggerhead turtle or bald eagle, and
pays people for taking the potential life of unborn babies, that Nation
has lost its way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule
and the underlying bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of this rule and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since the first
time I had an opportunity to vote for this ban, I have had a nephew
born who is less than 2 pounds when he was born. You could hold him in
the palm of your hand.
We have an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 healthy babies that are victims
of this partial-birth abortion each year, many of them larger than my
nephew, who lives today. In a country founded on the principle of
respect for the dignity
[[Page H4917]]
of life, this is deplorable and must be stopped.
Doctors agree that this is not necessary, and it has been labeled not
good medicine by the AMA. It can significantly threaten the mother's
health and future pregnancies; and they inflict terrible pain upon the
baby, who is a few inches from being born and taking its first breath.
Twice we have passed this and President Clinton has vetoed it. Today
we have an opportunity to put this into law. Thomas Jefferson had it
right when he said that liberty and the pursuit of happiness begins
with life. I urge my fellow Members to support this rule and to support
passage.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for America as we are
poised to pass H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. This
legislation would stop the gruesome procedure that kills a child just
inches from birth.
I will not go into the gory details of this particularly cruel
procedure, but I will mention that numerous medical experts have
testified that fetuses are able to fully feel pain after 20 weeks of
development, at the time when most partial-birth abortion procedures
occur.
It is also important to note that health experts agree that partial-
birth abortions are never needed to save the life of the mother. Even
the AMA has stated that partial-birth abortions pose serious health
risks to women, and indeed, are not accepted medical practice. Yet this
gruesome and evil practice continues to take place.
Today, we take a giant leap forward to end this practice. I look
forward for the President to sign this bill into law. I urge passage of
the rule and of the bill to protect the most innocent of our society.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a bill to ban
partial-birth abortion, called that because the baby is mostly
delivered before being killed. Finally, after many years of debate and
two vetos by our former President, this bill is going to become law.
In a Nation where we have laws to protect turtles' eggs and the
developing offspring of other endangered species, finally we will
extend some modest measure of protection to our own developing young
humans. Finally, the deception of those who defend this procedure has
been exposed. Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader in the abortion industry,
admitted that they ``lied through their teeth'' when they claimed this
procedure was rare.
In my State of New Jersey, there are at least 1,500 partial-birth
abortions done each year at one clinic alone. They admit that most of
these are done on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. Is this the
best our culture has to offer? Is this the best our society can offer
to those who are in need? Is this brutal and barbaric procedure
something we as a society are willing to accept and condone? What does
it say about us as a civilized society, as a culture, if we cannot
condemn and outlaw this kind of brutality?
Let us say today that we will not accept this, that we are better
than this. Let us support this rule, and let us pass this bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
{time} 1630
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to
protect the lives of women and children in the United States. We must
ban partial-birth abortions.
This type of abortion procedure is gruesome. I cannot imagine how
anyone could have the stomach to perform it. Who, may I ask, who could
possibly pull a baby from the womb by its feet first, and then stab the
half-delivered child in the head and then vacuum out its brain? The
child was inches from taking its first breath, but now it is dead and
discarded as garbage.
The last five Congresses have supported a ban on partial-birth
abortion because a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary,
and because a partial-birth abortion poses significant health risks to
the mother, and because partial-birth abortion is not recognized as a
valid medical procedure by the mainstream medical community.
For this reason, I support the rule. I support H.R. 760, and I oppose
the Greenwood substitute. I urge my colleagues to join me in banning
this inhuman procedure once and for all.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put into the record something that is
stated in a recent New York Times article, because we keep hearing that
these are babies that have extreme abnormalities. And I quote from the
article, ``One aspect of the debate has changed. When it began, some
opponents of the ban said the targeted form of abortion was used only
when a fetus had extreme abnormalities or a mother's health was
endangered by pregnancy. Now both sides acknowledge that abortions done
late in the second trimester, no matter how they are conducted, are
most often performed to end healthy pregnancies because the woman
arrived relatively late to her decision to abort.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the statistics on the clinic in
Pennsylvania were really quite shocking. I thought these were all done
in hospital situations. I have never heard those kinds of figures for
anything.
That aside, let me read about a woman who terminated a pregnancy
that, they are very rare, I still believe that.
The decision to terminate a pregnant late in term is an agonizing
decision for the women and their families. Listen to the story of Viki
Wilson and her family as she told it in her own words:
``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my
third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician had
delivered our other children and would do it again this time. At 36
weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations
came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that
detected that all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect.
Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brains had formed outside her
skull. What I had thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements
were, in fact, seizures.
``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a
perinatologist, a pediatric radiologist, and a geneticist, in a
desperate attempt to find a way to save her; but everyone agreed she
would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the
pregnancy progressed and before I went into labor, she would probably
die from the increased compression in her brain.
``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and
delivery, c-section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size
of her anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the
birthing process probably rendering me sterile. The doctors also
recommended against a c-section because they could not justify the
risks to my health when there was not any hope of saving Abigail.
``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical
professionals. I am a registered nurse and Bill is a physician, so we
understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. And after
discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we
made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E.
Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that has ever happened to us in
our lives, but I am grateful that Bill and I were able to make this
difficult decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical
options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy.
Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do
not complicate the tragedies that we already face. Oppose H.R. 760.''
Mr. Speaker, for Viki and her family and for other Vikis yet to come,
I hope that my colleagues will oppose this rule and oppose the
underlying bill, H.R. 760. And I urge them to remember that once this
bill passes the House, if it does, then it will be substituted for the
Senate bill. The Senate bill at least
[[Page H4918]]
had the protection in it that was passed by Senator Dorgan on his
request that says that Roe v. Wade would be preserved. Obviously, by
substituting this bill for that bill, Roe v. Wade will not be
preserved.
[From the New York Times, June 4, 2003]
``Partial Birth'' Mendacity, Again
If the so-called partial-birth abortion ban now careering
toward almost certain approval by the full House this week
has a decidedly familiar ring, it is not your imagination
playing tricks. The trickery here belongs to the measure's
sponsors.
Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term
abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a
sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v.
Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after
the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed,
the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme
Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three
years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the
bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the
health of the woman.
Plainly, the measure's backers are counting on the public
not to read the fine print. Their strategy is to curtail
access to abortion further as the inevitable legal challenge
wends its way back to the Supreme Court for another showdown.
They obviously hope that by that time, there will have been a
personnel change that will shift the outcome their way.
House members who vote for this bill will be participating
in a cynical exercise that disrespects the rule of law and
women's health while threatening the fundamental right of
women to make their own childbearing decisions.
Representatives who care about such things will not go along.
____
[From The Washington Post, June 4, 2003]
`Partial Birth,' Partial Truths
(By Ruth Marcus)
The poisonous national debate over what's known as partial-
birth abortion resumes this week, and this time for real: The
House is expected to handily approve a prohibition on the
procedure, and the Senate has already passed its version.
While his predecessor twice vetoed bills outlawing partial-
birth abortion, President Bush is eager to sign legislation
that he ways will ``protect infants at the very hour of their
birth.''
For those who support abortion rights, partial-birth
abortion is not the battleground of choice, which is
precisely why those who oppose abortion have seized on the
issue. The procedure is gruesome, as indeed are all abortions
performed at that stage of pregnancy. Although partial-birth
abortion is routinely described as a late-term procedure,
this label is misleading. The procedure isn't performed until
after the 16th week of pregnancy, but it's already legal for
states to prohibit abortions once a fetus is viable, at about
24 weeks. More than 40 states have such bans, and properly
so. The Supreme Court has said that abortions must be
available even after fetuses are viable if necessary to
protect the life or health of the mother, and it may be that
the health exception ought to be stricter. But this has
nothing to do with a partial-birth abortion ban. The law
would not prevent any abortion, before viability or after.
Instead, it would make one particular procedure--one that may
be the safest method for some women--a criminal act.
Indeed, even as they dwell on the gory details of the
partial-birth procedure, the groups pushing for a ban on it
don't seem to be doing anything to make it easier for women
to obtain abortions earlier. Rather, the rest of their
antiabortion agenda has been devoted to putting practical and
legal roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortions at any
stage of pregnancy. Thus, a pregnant teenager faced with
multiple hurdles--no abortion provider nearby, no money, a
parental consent law--may end up letting her pregnancy
progress to the point where she is seeking a second-trimester
abortion.
Then there are situations arising from the availability of
medical technology that permits a previously impossible
glimpse inside the womb. Amniocentesis, which doctors urge
for women over 35 because of the heightened risk of birth
defects, is not performed until the 15th or 16th week of
pregnancy. Other fetal defects may be detected on sonograms
only at that stage or later. This puts women squarely in the
zone where partial-birth abortion becomes an awful
possibility.
When it struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law
three years ago, the Supreme Court cited two distinct
problems. First, the law was supposed to prohibit only
partial-birth abortion, in which the fetus is partially
delivered and then dismembered. But, intentionally or not, it
was written so inexactly that it could also apply to the most
common--though scarcely less grisly--technique for second-
trimester abortions, dilation and evacuation, in which the
fetus is dismembered before being removed from the womb. Such
a bar, the court said, would be unconstitutional because it
imposes an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to abortion
before the fetus is viable.
Second, the ban made no exception that would allow the
procedure to be performed when necessary to protect the
health of the mother. In cases of hydrocephaly, for example,
partially delivering the fetus and then collapsing the skull
can reduce damage to the cervix--and possibly preserve a
woman's ability to carry another child to term. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists told the justices
that the partial-birth procedure ``presents a variety of
potential safety advantages. Especially for women with
particular health conditions, there is medical evidence that
[it] may be safer than available alternatives.''
The legislation now before Congress tries to avoid the
first problem identified by the court by defining partial-
birth abortion more precisely. Opponents contend that the new
definition could still apply to the more common technique.
The bill's supporters argue this is not true, but they could
have explicitly exempted such abortions from the law's reach
if they really wanted to make that clear.
A bigger problem is the cavalier way in which Congress
leapfrogged the court's requirement for a health exception:
Lawmakers simply declared that partial-birth abortion ``is
never medically indicated to preserve the health of the
mother.'' As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a different
context, if Congress ``could make a statute constitutional
simply by `finding' that black is white or freedom, slavery,
judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' What if
Congress, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education,
``found'' that segregated schools could be equal after all?
The political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, president of the
conservative Family Research Council, spelled this out in an
e-mail after the Senate vote last March. ``With this bill,''
he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick,
the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.' Indeed, in urging
the overturning of partial-birth abortion laws in Illinois
and Wisconsin, federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner,
one of the nation's most prominent conservative jurist, said
such statutes have nothing to do with protecting fetuses.
Rather, said the judge, ``they are concerned with making a
statement in an ongoing war for public opinion. . . . The
statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's
health.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for the rule on the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003. As a member of the bipartisan congressional prolife caucus and as
a doctor who has dedicated over 2 decades of my life to my obstetrics
practice, I believe this unnecessary procedure should be banned.
As a physician who has delivered over 3,000 babies, I am personally
opposed to any type of abortion, but in particular the only reason to
select the partial-birth abortion procedure is to ensure that the baby
is dead when it is delivered.
As a physician, I recognize that serious complications can occur
during the last trimester of pregnancy. However, if the mother's health
dictates that the pregnancy must be concluded and a normal birth is not
possible, the baby, of course, may be delivered by hysterotomy or
cesarean section. Whether the infant lives or dies depends upon the
severity of the medical complications and the degree of prematurity,
but that outcome is dictated by the disease process itself. The fate of
the infant during a partial-birth abortion procedure is predetermined
by the nature of the procedure performed, and it is uniformly fatal.
During my 2 decades of the practice of obstetrics, with my share of
high-risk pregnancies, I never encountered a situation where the
partial-birth abortion procedure was required. I believe that it is
inhuman and never medically necessary. The procedure itself, always
fatal to the baby, carries substantial risk for the mother as well.
Partial birth abortions are done in the third trimester when an
unborn child has developed organs and all the characteristics of a
newborn baby. Through the use of technology, patients now have the
opportunity to see how life develops before birth. Parents can now
watch the beating of an unborn child's heart as early as 20 days after
conception and can see movement of the child's arms and legs after 3
months' gestation.
In 1995, a panel of 12 doctors representing the American Medical
Association voted unanimously to recommend banning partial-birth
abortion, calling it ``basically repulsive.''
I agree with my colleagues at the AMA that it is repulsive and
unnecessary. I strongly support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003. I believe the United States Constitution is
[[Page H4919]]
very clear when it guarantees a right to life. Partial-birth abortion
has no place in a civilized society.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family
medical emergency, I am unable to be present for the debate and vote on
H. Res. 257, the rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 760.
However, I wish to submit this statement for the Record to ensure that
my position on this legislation is clear.
While I am opposed to H.R. 760, I am encouraged that the Rules
Committee has finally allowed a substitute amendment to this bill. For
the fifth time in nine years, this bill has been brought to the floor
of the House for a vote. But, for the first time, a compromise
substitute amendment is being allowed. I support the substitute
amendment offered by Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer and therefore,
if I had been present, would have voted in favor of H. Res. 257 to
allow this compromise to be brought to the floor.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Following this vote, proceedings will resume on 3 motions to suspend
the rules considered earlier today and those votes will be conducted as
5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280,
nays 138, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No 236]
YEAS--280
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--138
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Dicks
Eshoo
Gephardt
Jones (OH)
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lewis (KY)
Oberstar
Pickering
Rothman
Ryan (WI)
Smith (WA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1658
Messrs. HONDA, SPRATT and BERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. HINOJOSA, JOHN, ISRAEL and BUYER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________