[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 138 (Thursday, October 2, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9135-H9155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 3, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 383

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 3) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as 
     partial-birth abortion. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
rule to provide for the customary 1 hour of consideration for the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Conference Report of 2003.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany S. 3 and against its consideration. It also provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  This conference report 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 this conference report 
reach the floor of the House of Representatives. I have been waiting 
for this day to come since 1995.
  I am sure that President Bush is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to 
put an end to this horrific act of human violence by signing this 
legislation into law. Finally, we have a President in the White House 
who will not veto this monumental legislation.

[[Page H9136]]

  I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda 
for passing this important legislation. I must say, as a mother and a 
grandmother, it is astonishing to me that this horrible practice is 
even remotely legal in America today, and as we will no doubt hear on 
the floor today, it is practiced all too often in there country.
  Partial-birth abortion is the procedure where a pregnant woman's 
cervix is forcibly dilated over a 3-day period. On the third day, her 
child is pulled, feet first, through the birth canal until his or her 
entire body, except for the head, is outside the womb. The head is held 
inside the womb by the woman's cervix, and while the fetus is stuck in 
this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body and just a few 
inches from a completed birth, the abortionist inserts scissors into 
the base of the baby's skull, and the scissors are opened, creating a 
hole in the baby's head. The skull is either then crushed with 
instruments or a suction catheter is inserted into the hole and the 
baby's brain is suctioned out. Since the head is now small enough to 
slip through the mother's cervix, the now lifeless body is pulled the 
rest of the way out of its mother and the baby's corpse is discarded, 
usually as medical waste.
  The vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy 
babies and healthy mothers. Congressional findings have shown that the 
procedure is not medically necessary and actually poses a significant 
threat to the mother's health and her future fertility.
  This conference report would also punish those who perform the 
procedure with fines and prison terms of up to 2 years. Husbands or 
parents of women younger than 18 would be able to sue for damages.
  Although language banning this procedure was 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,'' D & E method. The conference report 
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 naval 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. We 
have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome 
constitutional barriers, and I am confident it will survive judicial 
review.
  This is a historic day for the American people. A civilized society 
cannot tolerate the barbaric nature of the partial-birth abortion 
procedure. Mr. Speaker, the public wants 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 conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a historic day for America, 
for more, I think, than most people in here realize. For the first time 
in the history of the Republic, the Congress of the United States is 
poised to outlaw a medical procedure. A majority that wants the 
government off everybody's backs, wants to preserve privacy, is 
inserting itself between a woman and her family and her physician.
  I wonder what is next. Perhaps they will decide that one cannot have 
a hysterectomy during child-bearing years, even though one may have 
some serious disease, or maybe we will outlaw vasectomies. That would 
be something we could do in here today too. And maybe we would not even 
like gallbladder operations. Who knows? There may be some reason we 
would not want to do those. All of them are pretty gruesome to 
describe.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the beginning of a new fiscal year and 
only three of the 13 bills appropriating funds for the new year have 
been signed into law. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Jobs 
continue steadily to disappear. More families living in poverty for the 
second year in a row, another historic day for America that has not 
happened before. Tens of millions of families live without any health 
insurance. The Federal debt is projected to reach $5 trillion. 
Thousands of American troops are in Iraq working in dangerous 
conditions. And instead of addressing these pressing issues, we are 
once again considering legislation that violates fundamental 
constitutional rights and threatens women's health.
  Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court settled this issue, 
they thought once and for all, when it struck down similar legislation 
that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. The Court again 
confirmed the constitutional foundation of women's reproductive rights 
as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned 
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. At the end of their 
last term, in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Court relied on the 
right to privacy that was recognized in Roe.
  Despite the minor tinkering of the conference committee, S. 3 still 
suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute 
thrown out by the Supreme Court, and this one we hope will meet the 
same fate. The ban on medical procedures is vague and overbroad and 
does not contain an exception to perform the procedure 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 damages, even 
if he is not married to her or if he beats her or rapes her.
  Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth 
abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is a political 
creation. We will not find the definition of the procedure that S. 3 
seeks to ban in a medical dictionary or textbook. The nonmedical 
language in S. 3 could cover at least two different kinds of 
procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion procedure. 
This vague and overbroad definition would create so much confusion in 
the medical community that doctors would not know which medical 
procedure might land them in jail, and we should not make our doctors 
criminals.
  S. 3 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme Court 
has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when 
the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional 
findings will not change or will not fulfill the constitutional demand 
to protect a woman's health.

                              {time}  1030

  The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most 
especially the Supreme Court, will defer to these congressional 
findings and waive this constitutional requirement. But the Court has 
squarely said that ``the power to interpret the Constitution in a case 
of controversy remains in the judiciary.'' And the Court has said that 
simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not necessarily make it 
so. 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 demands of the Constitution.
  Last June, when the House first considered this bill, Ruth Marcus 
noted in The Washington Post that ``just as Clarence Thomas wrote in a 
different context that, if Congress `could make a statute 
constitutional simply by finding that black is white or that freedom is 
slavery, then judicial review would be an elaborate farce.' ''
  Despite what politicians may say, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors who perform these 
procedures, say that the procedure this bill seeks to proscribe

[[Page H9137]]

``may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
circumstance to save the life,'' I want to emphasize that, ``to save 
the life or preserve the health of a woman,'' and that ``only the 
physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her 
circumstances, can make this decision,'' not the Congress of the United 
States. We are not physicians here. I think we think we are omnipotent; 
we are not. Medical professionals in every Federal court in the country 
that has heard this issue, except for one, all have agreed that these 
are safe procedures and they may, in fact, be the safest procedure in 
some circumstances.
  This, as I pointed out before, is the first time in the history of 
this Republic that Congress is banning a specific medical procedure. 
Physicians, and not politicians and pundits, should provide women and 
their families with medical advice. Women and their families, not the 
government, should make these difficult and private and medical 
decisions.
  This bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their 
patients. By outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, Congress 
would subject women to more dangerous medical procedures, putting their 
health and their lives in jeopardy. Do we really want to do that? Women 
deserve the best medical care based on the circumstances of their 
particular situation. Instead of making abortion more difficult and 
dangerous, we should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for 
abortions; but we will not do that, by reducing the number of intended 
pregnancies. We should increase the funding for title X, and health 
insurance should cover contraception. It covers Viagra. Why not 
contraception? Emergency contraception should be more available. And 
research on other contraceptive methods should be fostered.
  So why are we here today considering a rule for an unconstitutional 
bill? Richard Posner, Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 
7th Circuit who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the answer 
when he wrote that the proponents of similar legislation ``are 
concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, 
though an incidental effect may be to discourage late-term abortions. 
The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's 
health.'' Let me say that last sentence again: ``The statement is that 
fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Judge Posner went 
on, writing 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 the rights, 
the burden is undue.''
  The deliberate actions of the conference committee underscore the 
real aim of the bill. The majority of the other body passed a version, 
S. 3, that said, ``The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was 
appropriate and secures an important constitutional right, and such 
decision should not be overturned.'' Tuesday evening, the conference 
committee, along party lines, quickly stripped the Roe-supportive 
language out of the bill. This emphasizes the true purpose of the 
legislation: targeting a woman's right to privacy, with the hope that a 
Supreme Court with a new justice or two will weaken or reverse Roe. A 
Washington Post article said it plainly: ``The political agenda is 
clear. Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research 
Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted last March. 
With this bill,'' he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by 
brick, the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.''
  As a mother, grandmother, and a long-time 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 her privacy and control of her body. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this rule and to oppose S. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  (Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, few things that we do in this life have 
significance as we go 10, 20 years down the road; but the work that we 
are doing today in this Chamber has enormous significance. Partial 
birth abortion defies logic. I try to imagine how an individual could 
even come up with this thing that is called euphemistically a 
``procedure.'' I am trying to imagine in my mind how a doctor, who is 
calling on his or her life to be a healer, to extend life for 
individuals, came up with this procedure. I am trying to imagine how 
sticking scissors into the brain of a child that is partially born is 
called a ``medical procedure'' that is to benefit the life of the 
mother, the mother whose body is getting ready to birth this child, a 
woman who is going through all of the things that we have gone through, 
getting ready to have the child.
  It is an important thing in this Nation today that we have 
acknowledged what this really is, and it is a good day in America when 
our President will sign the partial-birth abortion ban into law.
  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, here we are at the end of the fiscal year 
with important unfinished work for the House of Representatives. Our 
fiscal year budget is not complete, our seniors do not have a 
prescription drug benefit, and our local communities still need support 
in the war against terror, to list only a few of the unfinished pieces 
of business that we have before us.
  Yet, what does the majority decide to bring to the floor? A bill that 
everyone knows will not pass the muster of the Supreme Court. Because 
there is no exemption to protect a woman's health, this bill not only 
fails to meet moral requirements, it fails to meet constitutional 
requirements.
  We have a moral obligation to protect and promote women's health, not 
endanger it. In fact, our debate should be about measures to reduce the 
number of unintended pregnancies and ensuring that all pregnant women 
have affordable access to the care they need so they can deliver 
healthy babies.
  The Supreme Court has been clear. Our laws cannot take away a woman's 
right to a safe and accepted medical procedure when her health is in 
danger; and yet the antichoice lobby chooses to once again waste our 
valuable time pushing legislation that politicizes women's health and 
chips away at a woman's constitutional right to choose an appropriate 
lifesaving medical procedure.
  As we know, a pregnancy can go tragically wrong in the final stages; 
and in these unimaginable circumstances, a woman must 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, nor should any Member of the House, nor any 
Federal agency. Instead, I want every woman in my district and in this 
Nation to have access to the procedure she and her physician feel are 
the safest and most appropriate for her particular situation.
  Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, 
healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur, and those that do are 
tragically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. This 
debate is really about limiting a woman's right to privacy and 
restricting access to constitutionally protected medical procedures. 
The American people must know that while the necessary work of the 
House of Representatives remains undone, we are here debating a bill 
that makes an unconstitutional attempt to chip away at a woman's right 
to access for a particular medical procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose this 
conference report.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the conference 
report on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

[[Page H9138]]

of 2003. For nearly a decade, Congress has attempted to see this 
legislation become law, and I am pleased that we will again be 
affirming the message that partial-birth abortion is wrong.
  There is overwhelming support in the second district of Kentucky and 
across the Nation for a ban on partial-birth abortions. Eight versions 
of a partial-birth abortion ban have passed the House since the 104th 
Congress. This body also passed multiple overrides of Presidential 
vetoes on this issue during the Clinton administration. Throughout this 
time, we have seen numerous State legislatures take similar action and 
vote to end the savage practice of partial-birth abortions in their 
States.
  There is a clear and consistent mandate throughout the Nation: 
partial-birth abortion is wrong and must be prohibited by law.
  I realize that the issue of abortion is difficult and powerfully 
divisive for many Americans. There are well-intentioned, intelligent 
people on both sides of this debate who will continue to disagree. But 
I am deeply concerned about the value our society places on human life 
when we tolerate this practice, brutally denying a defenseless, unborn 
child its right to life. By condoning abortion, and especially the 
brutal practice and procedure of a partial-birth abortion, our greater 
human condition is significantly cheapened.
  I am pleased that so many of my colleagues are taking a stand and 
acting in support of this legislation. This conference report 
demonstrates the bicameral and often bipartisan commitment of lawmakers 
in the 108th Congress to protect the sanctity of human life by 
outlawing a procedure that devalues and violently terminates its 
potential. I am also encouraged knowing that at this time we have an 
administration that is willing to take positive action and sign this 
ban into law.
  The late Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, ``The greatest 
destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own 
child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is 
nothing between.'' It is time we act strongly and unmistakably and vote 
once again to preserve life and ban this gruesome, inhuman practice.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let us be crystal clear about what this House 
is doing today. We are making a medical judgment. That ought to be of 
deep concern to every American who believes that the Federal Government 
has no business injecting itself into the middle of the doctor-patient 
relationship. If we pass this partial-birth abortion conference report, 
elected representatives of the people of the United States, not the 
medical community, not doctors, not trained persons, will be telling 
every American woman that she cannot obtain certain medical procedures 
that are currently legal and available to her. If that does not trouble 
you, this should: this conference report is patently unconstitutional.
  The proponents of this conference report are literally trying to 
paper over Supreme Court precedent in direct contradiction of the 
Supreme Court's decision 3 years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart. This 
conference report deliberately excludes an exception for cases in which 
a woman's health is in jeopardy. Instead, the proponents of this 
conference report have added dozens of pages of congressional findings 
that conclude that the prescribed abortion procedure is never medically 
necessary. The distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
quoted Justice Thomas in saying that that would not work and could not 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that anyone here believes that abortion 
is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy; no one believes that. I 
think without question that this belief is even stronger when an 
abortion is obtained in the later stages of pregnancy. However, Mr. 
Speaker, the fact of the matter is, this legislation, and I have said 
it before and I will say it again, would not prevent one abortion.

                              {time}  1045

  This legislation will not prevent one abortion, not one. Why? Because 
it leaves in place other procedures. That is because, while it claims 
to ban a specific medical procedure performed in the most tragic of 
circumstances, it leaves other means of terminating a pregnancy in 
place. To that extent, this legislation is without effect.
  I would challenge any proponent of this legislation to tell me why it 
prohibits the termination of a pregnancy. I understand the proponents 
say it prohibits a procedure, but there will be not one proponent 
because it will not be medically justifiable to say so, that it 
precludes the termination of a pregnancy at any stage.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this House has again missed an important 
opportunity to seize what common ground exists in this difficult issue. 
The bipartisan Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act, which failed on this 
floor, which I co-sponsored this year, addresses the heart of the 
matter: the termination of pregnancy in the late stages of pregnancy. 
That legislation would have precluded all late-term abortions by any 
method except to save the life or protect the health of the mother.
  It is clear that the conference report before us is nothing but a 
veiled attempt to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Roe 
versus Wade. It will fail. It will fail in the courts. How else can one 
explain the conferee's decision to strip out the Senate language 
reaffirming Roe? I hope my colleagues reject this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
rule and passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. Eliminating 
the cruel and unusual punishment of partial birth abortion is a step in 
the right direction for the United States as a civilized society. We 
would never tolerate such a brutal form of execution for the most 
heinous criminal. It is right to end this method of killing innocent, 
unborn children in their mother's womb.
  The facts of partial-birth abortion are gruesome, and I will not 
repeat them. They are humiliating. They are heinous. I am embarrassed 
in this civilized society to have to describe a procedure that should 
never be. Ending partial birth abortion will reaffirm the principle in 
our Declaration of Independence that human beings, that baby smiling in 
the womb, are endowed by their creator with a right to life.
  I thank God for the support of President George W. Bush who will sign 
this bill into law to end this heinous practice.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for her leadership, and I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Contrary to what proponents have claimed, this bill has nothing to do 
with late-term abortions or with banning one specific procedure. 
Instead, this bill bans the safest procedures physicians perform, 
starting as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy. It also lacks any exception 
for the health of a woman.
  The Supreme Court settled this debate 3 years ago when it struck down 
a nearly identical Nebraska ban for the same two reasons I mentioned, 
and the Supreme Court warned that this type of legislation would have, 
and I quote, ``tragic health consequences,'' end quote.
  More women will suffer serious medical complications including 
infertility, infection, and even death because of your actions today.
  The question here is not whether this bill is unconstitutional; the 
question is, why are you passing an unconstitutional bill that is so 
dangerous to the health of your wives, daughters and friends?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, partial birth abortion is but 
the tip of an ugly and an unseemly iceberg.
  Just below the surface, the surface appeal of choice is a reality 
almost too horrific and cruel to contemplate, let alone face. Yet we 
persist in our illusions and denial, ever enabled by clever marketing, 
biased news reporting, and the cheap sophistry of choice.
  Let us be clear. Abortion is child abuse, and it exploits women.

[[Page H9139]]

  Women deserve better than having their babies stabbed, cut, 
decapitated, or poisoned. Women deserve nonviolent, life-affirming, 
positive alternatives to abortion.
  Thirty years after Roe, the national debate about partial birth 
abortion has finally pierced the multiple layers of euphemisms and 
collective denial to reveal child battering in the extreme. The cover-
up is over, and the dirty secret concerning abortion methods is finally 
getting the scrutiny that will usher in reform and protective statutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing compassionate nor benign about stabbing 
babies in the brain with scissors so their brains can be sucked out. In 
like manner, there is nothing compassionate or benign about other 
methods of abortion, like injections of chemical poison that burn and 
blister or dismemberment by suction machines 20 to 30 times more 
powerful than household vacuum cleaners.
  The loss of children's lives since Roe has been staggering, Mr. 
Speaker: 44.4 million babies dead. Picture this: Two days ago 56,292 
fans packed into Yankee Stadium for the play-offs. The number of 
children killed since Roe would fill Yankee Stadium to capacity each 
and every day for 788 days. The shear number of children destroyed is 
numbing.
  Then there is the terrible toll that abortion imposes on women. A new 
organization, Mr. Speaker, Silent No More, organized by women who have 
had abortions, including actress Jennifer O'Neill, shatters the myth 
that abortion somehow benefits women. ``We are the face of women 
exploited,'' they say.
  Women need real love, genuine compassion, and their voice will 
ultimately be heard. Mr. Speaker, the cover-up is over.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for her steadfast work to preserve a woman's right to 
choose, as this bill does not, and to keep us from endangering that 
right from the thirteenth week on. And that is what this bill does.
  I want to speak to the constitutional issues. I understand where many 
Americans are on what they think is misnamed partial birth abortion. 
You know, that is a 1984 gamut, call something what it is not, trying 
to focus the American people on a viable baby being aborted as it comes 
out of its mother's womb. My friends, that is not this bill.
  This bill is a virtual twin of a bill in Nebraska law that was struck 
down 3 years ago by the Supreme Court in Stenberg versus Carhart. This 
is a redux of that unconstitutional law. And though there have been 
some attempts to fiddle with the bill in those terms, there is not a 
dime's worth of difference between this law and the Nebraska law.
  Now, the Republicans are not as dumb as they look. They have read the 
decision. They are not even trying to ban one procedure. They are 
trying to dip into the second trimester, and, boy, have they done it. 
And Ms. and Mrs. America do understand that, beginning with the 
thirteenth week, the procedures most commonly used and understood to be 
the safest procedures for performing abortions after the thirteenth 
week would be banned by this bill. In the law we say it is 
unconstitutionally vague. That means it is so broad that it goes beyond 
what might be legal. Of course, this would not be legal because it has 
no health exception.
  The majority is trying to practice medicine without a license. It 
certainly is not capable of practicing law without a license, because 
each and every time this and similar bills have been overturned. Worse, 
there is no health exception. It is as if Roe versus Wade never said 
that in order to be constitutional there always had to be a health 
exception. These folks just slide right over that.
  I want to leave you with the words of the Supreme Court in Carhart, 
because you are going to be hearing them again. This is not my Supreme 
Court, this is a conservative Supreme Court. And it said, ``Using this 
law some present prosecutors and future attorneys general may choose to 
pursue physicians who use the most commonly used method for performing 
previability, second trimester abortions. All those who perform 
abortion procedures using that method must fear prosecution, 
conviction, and imprisonment. The result is an undue burden upon a 
woman's right to make an abortion decision. We must quickly find the 
statute unconstitutional.''
  It was unconstitutional 3 years ago, my friends. It is 
unconstitutional today, even if we enact it.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, today we enter into the final weeks of 
debate, delay, and continued obstructionism surrounding one of the most 
corrupt laws ever forced upon this land by the Supreme Court, that of 
partial birth abortion. This horrific and violent procedure against 
pre-born American children unbelievably is still the law of this land.
  As shown on this diagram, this law allows an abortionist to pull a 
fully developed baby out of its mother's womb by its feet. This is the 
law that still allows an abortionist to insert his scissors into the 
base of a child's brain stem, and this is the law that still allows an 
abortionist to vacuum out a baby's brains.
  They deceive the American people by calling it choice. Hide the true 
facts and spin it until you are blue in the face, but the days of this 
Nation having a law that advocates child abuse and death to pre-born 
American children may finally have seen its own demise. We are on the 
verge of eliminating a decrepit and immoral law from the same books 
that contains our sacred rights and liberties.
  As the father of 12 children, I want to teach my children to love 
this Nation unconditionally, to revere her, to respect her laws and be 
drawn into complying with the laws of this Nation because her laws 
represent goodness, because they are filled with integrity, and because 
we are bound by a moral sense of obligation to abide by them.
  Let us love this Nation and hold her laws in esteem by eradicating 
this disgusting laws from our land. Stop the torture and infanticide of 
our pre-born American children and our future patriots. Let them have 
life and finally let us rid ourselves of this evil.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I need really to respond to the previous speaker.
  First, Roe v. Wade does not allow abortions after the first trimester 
without a doctor's permission. These are fetuses in many cases with no 
brains, with no lungs, who may live for a moment or two. These are not 
children that are born and run around the room.
  It is outrageous to stigmatize women who have had this procedure so 
that they can protect their fertility system so that maybe they, too, 
can have 12 children and not have to stop with one. Have a little 
compassion.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious attempt to save 
babies. It is a cynical attempt to make political points. Do you know 
what? There is a dirty little secret about this bill that is starting 
to get out, and that secret is that this bill does not outlaw late-term 
abortions. Let me repeat that.
  Under this bill, late-term abortions under Federal law, will still be 
perfectly legal. Why do I say that? Very simply, because this bill only 
outlaws one late-term abortion procedure, while allowing all others to 
remain perfectly legal. For 8 years, I have asked on this floor the 
supporters of this bill to explain why they did not want to put in this 
bill an outlaw of all late-term abortion procedures like I helped do in 
the Texas legislature 13 years ago.
  I think probably the honest answer to that was given by Ralph Reed a 
number of years ago when he said, ``the partial-birth abortion bill is 
a silver political bullet.'' And I think the people in America who 
should truly be upset about this bill and the effort to pass it for 8 
years, are not just the pro-choice people. It should be the genuine, 
decent pro-life people who in their own heart have been misled to 
believe that

[[Page H9140]]

this bill would actually outlaw late-term abortions. It does not. And 
that is a dirty little secret that is starting to get out, even in the 
pro-life community.
  In fact, let us go to a statement made just 2 weeks ago by Randall 
Terry, who is the founder of Operation Rescue, an ardently pro-life 
organization. This is what Mr. Terry, a pro-life citizen, said, ``This 
bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life.''
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dirty little secret is getting out. There is 
another little secret that is getting out about this bill, and that is 
that it is absolutely, patently unconstitutional. So those who have 
pushed this bill have pushed a false promise on their pro-life 
constituents.
  Why is it unconstitutional? It is as clear as the Supreme Court can 
say. When it puts a decision in italics, I think it is trying to make 
it a very clear point to those who would read it; but for those who 
cannot understand it, let me read Justice O'Conner's statement from the 
Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 2000, which outlawed a bill almost 
exactly like this.
  ``States may substantially regulate and even prescribe abortion, but 
any such regulation or prescription must,'' not maybe, ``must contain 
an exception for instances,'' and this was in italics, ``where it is 
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of 
life or health of the mother.''
  Well, guess what, unlike the constitutional bill I passed in the 
Texas legislature 17 years ago abolishing all late-term abortion 
procedures, but constitutional because we had a health exception, this 
bill refuses to have a health exception, even when the mother's health 
is at risk.
  This bill is a false promise. It will harm good decent women in this 
country, and it should be defeated.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the rule and I urge my colleagues to again support the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  I am pleased to stand here today on the brink of passage of this 
critical piece of legislation. In doing so, we reaffirm that partial-
birth abortion is a heinous and unnecessary procedure that has already 
claimed the lives of too many innocent preborn victims.
  We already know in statements, such as those of former Surgeon 
General C. Everett Koop, that a ``partial-birth abortion is never 
medically necessary to protect a mother's health.'' Why then, Mr. 
Speaker, is there any question at all that this procedure needs to be 
banned?
  We must stop victimizing the women and children of America through 
partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, the insanity of legalized murder will end with the 
passage of this long-awaited law. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule and pass the partial-birth abortion ban.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) have any further speakers?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have about five more speakers.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
what is perhaps one of the most significant pieces of legislation that 
this House will ever consider. Why so significant? Because this bill 
will save lives. But even more than that, more than saving lives, it 
would save the lives of innocent children. And that is why I support 
the passage on the ban of partial-birth abortion.
  This procedure, as some would like to call it, is a cruel, unusual, 
heinous, inhumane way of murdering our children.
  As we pass this bill today, we will be doing so with the support of 
the American public. We will be doing so with the support of the people 
back in my State of New Jersey and with some 30 other States as well, 
who have tried as well to ban this heinous conduct. And the reason why 
they are supporting us in this endeavor is because they know we must 
save the lives of this and future generations of the American family.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Ohio for introducing this legislation and for his leadership on this, 
and I want to thank God today that we will finally pass, and send to a 
President who will sign it, a bill banning a barbaric, brutal procedure 
for killing unborn babies.
  It seems to me having a legal ban on partial-birth abortion just 
strikes me as a minimal sort of threshold level indication of human 
decency for our society. To take an unborn baby, induce a partial 
delivery, kill the baby, then pull it out and discard it, demonstrates 
such a wanton contempt for human life, it really should be chilling for 
all of us.
  This bill establishes what I see as at least a minimal level of 
respect for human life; but, frankly, we have got a long way to go. I 
would like to address the Roe v. Wade decision which has come up 
repeatedly. I think we just need to speak candidly about this decision, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The fact is it is a terrible decision that has resulted in the deaths 
of millions of unborn babies. But even if the immorality of the 
decision does not move someone, I would think the contempt for the 
Constitution that it demonstrates ought to. Because let us face it, you 
can read the Constitution. It is written in English, and it is very 
clear. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to have abortions. A 
few Supreme Court Justices on the other hand, decided that they would 
rather be legislators than Justices and so they invented this right. 
They wrote it in a decision. And unfortunately, as unaccountable 
legislators, it is now the law of the land. But that is what it is. It 
is a terrible misreading of the Constitution.
  I commend the conferees for striking the reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade 
from the bill that was passed in the other body. I commend them for 
bringing this bill to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and to support this conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, no matter where we stand on the issue of 
abortion, most Americans agree the brutal and horrific practice of 
partial-birth abortion in this country must end. I have even had some 
of the hard-shell pro-death, pro-abortion come up to me in saying that 
this horrific action ends. They even think it is bad.
  In previous Congresses, legislation to ban partial-birth abortion has 
been thwarted by Presidential veto. This year our President, President 
Bush, will sign this bill into law, making it the first abortion-
limiting law on the books since Roe v. Wade was enacted.
  This is truly an historic moment and a milestone for the rights of 
the unborn. This is also an historic time for this Congress. We have 
listened to the will of our constituents, and we heard them loud and 
clear. They demand a ban on partial-birth abortion. According to a 
recent poll conducted earlier this year, 70 percent, 70 percent of 
Americans favor a law that would make this procedure illegal, except in 
the case necessary to save the life of the mother.
  The outrage over this grotesque practice is nothing new. The American 
Medical Association has said the partial delivery of a living fetus for 
the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to 
most Americans and physicians. It degrades the medical practice and 
cheapens the value of life.
  As a husband and father of four beautiful children, I have a deep 
respect for the sanctity of life and the miracle of childbirth. I have 
been at every one of my children's births. Recently, I had a child 8 
months ago, and to think that if you could have stopped that head 
before it came out, but if it slips out you could not kill the child, 
but to stop the head but to stick a pair of scissors in the back of the 
skull, suck the brains out and deliver it dead is unimaginable and 
should not happen in the United States of America or anywhere else in 
the world.
  There is no place in a civilized society for this horrific practice. 
Today we

[[Page H9141]]

take solace in the fact that the nightmare of partial-birth abortion 
will soon end. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and 
conference report.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and to the underlying bill.
  Let us make it clear, the conference report and the bill before us 
will not prohibit any abortions. Alternative bills which would have 
outlawed late-term abortions have been rejected by the majority. This 
bill will not prevent any abortions.
  The bill will prohibit a procedure. The abortion can still take place 
using another procedure, and I am not going to inflame the debate by 
describing in explicit detail the alternative procedures that may be 
used.
  But I will point out that Nebraska had a law banning the so-called 
partial-birth abortion procedure. Three years ago the United States 
Supreme Court held 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 where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the 
preservation of life or health of the mother. That is what five Supreme 
Court Justices said is 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. We conclude it does for at 
least two independent reasons.
  They went on to say that the first reason was that it lacks the 
exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. The Court 
said, ``Subsequent to viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate 
or even prescribe abortion,'' and then they put this in italics, 
``except where as necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the 
preservation of life or health of the mother.''
  It goes on to say that the governing standard requires an exception, 
now listen up, because now they put it in quotes, ``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 that 
``our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of 
regulating the methods of abortion impose significant health risks.'' 
They make it clear that risking a woman's health is the same, whether 
it happens to arise from regulating a particular method of abortion or 
from barring abortion entirely.
  Just in case we did not get it, the Court said again, ``By no means 
must the State grant physicians unfettered discretion in their 
selection of abortion methods. But where substantial medical authority 
supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure 
could endanger a woman's health, Casey requires that the statute 
include a health exception where the procedure is `necessary in the 
appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of 
the mother.' ''
  Now, the record clearly reflects that there is substantial medical 
authority supporting the use in some cases of this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of 
abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of 
abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme 
Court in one decision said at least five times that the health 
exception must be included for the statute to be constitutional.

                              {time}  1115

  Furthermore, they put the exact phrase to be used, ``necessary, in 
appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or the 
health of the mother,'' in plain text, in italics and in quotations.
  Here we have a bill without the health exception. It is clearly 
unconstitutional, and we ought to reject the rule and the bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for yielding time to me; and Mr. Speaker, let me just say in regard to 
some of the comments that the gentleman from Virginia just made in 
regard to this ban on partial-birth abortion only eliminating one 
method of a late-term abortion, and he said he would not describe some 
of the other procedures of late-term abortion, and I wish maybe he had 
because I, as a physician, as an OB/GYN physician, do not know of any 
other procedures, late-term procedures that would result in the death 
of a child at this stage of pregnancy, and we are talking about 
infants, that are well past the point of viability.
  We are talking about, in some instances, 4\1/2\-, 5-pound babies, 
that that pregnancy cannot be terminated, and resulting in a dead baby 
without doing a destructive procedure known as partial-birth abortion. 
It literally is the only option left for a woman who wants to choose 
death for her child in the third trimester. If you do a cesarean 
section, you have got the problem of delivering a live child. If you 
induce labor, you have the problem of having a live child, and that 
problem means that you cannot perform an abortion.
  This is what it is all about, and the gentleman from Texas on the 
other side spoke a few minutes ago about the dirty little secret, the 
dirty little secret of this not banning late-term abortion. It 
certainly does when we eliminate this abhorrent procedure known as 
partial-birth abortion.
  This question that keeps coming up about the health exception, how in 
the world could anybody consider that it would be a healthy thing to 
put a mother through this kind of procedure in the third trimester. It 
is not healthy. It is totally unhealthy. It is a complete farce.
  I urge the adoption of the rule, and let us get on and pass this ban. 
It is time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on 
either side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining and has the 
right to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentlewoman has no 
more speakers?
  Mrs. MYRICK. I just have one more speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just make this very clear. The other side cannot 
have it both ways. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) argue that this legislation will not 
stop a single abortion, while the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
took to the floor and argued that it would ban all abortions after 12 
weeks. They cannot have it both ways.
  Let us be very clear. Let us have intellectual honesty in this 
debate. We are trying to proscribe a horrific procedure wherein a baby 
who is partially born, only to have his or her brain jabbed with a 
scissors or some other sharp instrument and his or her brains are 
sucked out, thereby killing that child. This was invented by the 
abortion industry as a way of precluding what they considered a 
``dreaded complication,'' that is, late-term abortions where babies 
actually survive and go on to be adopted in many cases.
  There have been many instances where babies survive an hour, 2 hours 
or longer. Some survive and are adopted, having survived later-term 
abortions. Partial birth abortion ensures that there is no survivor. 
They set out to kill the baby. The abortionist succeeds in his task.
  Let me also point out that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my good friend, argued that partial-birth abortions are 
performed on

[[Page H9142]]

disabled children. First of all, I resent the fact that somebody would 
suggest that a disabled child ought to be executed in this fashion. The 
Americans with Disability Act and all the other disability legislation 
finally brought us to the point where we recognized disabled people as 
just as human, just as alive, just as entitled to the best possible 
life imaginable as everyone else. To say that somehow the disabled 
ought to have this method reserved for them because, of course, they 
are disabled, I think, is unconscionable.
  Let me also say, Ron FitzSimmons from the Abortion lobby made it very 
clear Pro-Abortion side ``lied through our teeth'' about for whom this 
method was intended. It is intended for later-term, second-trimester 
and third-trimester abortions. They lied through their teeth about who 
it was these were performed on. And how often they are performed.
  Most of the kids who are killed with partial-birth abortion methods 
are perfectly healthy, perfectly normal, and those kids, like their 
disabled brothers and sisters, should not be executed in this terrible 
way or in any other way.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  First, let me say that no one is advocating the killing of disabled 
children. That is offensive to all of us. The fact is that a fetus that 
is being born with no brain or one with no lungs is one that will not 
live. I believe even the OB/GYN would admit to that.
  Let me then go on to say that this decision to terminate a pregnancy 
in the late term is an agonizing decision. Parents who have carried a 
child to late term desperately want that child. In many cases, they 
have already named that child. Listen to the story of Viki Wilson and 
her family.
  She told 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 what all of my previous prenatal testing had 
failed to detect, an encephalocoele. Approximately two-thirds of my 
daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What I thought were big, 
healthy, strong baby movements were in fact seizures.
  ``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a 
perinatologist,'' I am sorry, I am so upset about this I can hardly 
speak, ``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, 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, possibly 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 hope of saving Abigail.'' No 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. 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 ever happened to us in 
our lives, but I am grateful,'' I am grateful, ``that Bill and I were 
able to make this 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 we already face.''
  Oppose this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have had a lot of debate this morning on this issue, and we will 
have a lot more debate on this issue as we go through the actual bill 
and not just the rule; and I hope the American people can see what we 
are talking about. I still find it very hard to believe as a mother, a 
grandmother, and a great-grandmother that anybody could allow this 
horrific procedure to happen to their child.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and to vote in 
favor of the underlying legislation so it can finally be passed into 
law and signed by our President.
  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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 383, I 
call up the conference report accompanying the Senate bill (S. 3) to 
prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 383, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 30, 2003 at page H 8991.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  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 S. 3, the conference 
report 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 such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 would 
prohibit the gruesome and inhumane procedure known as partial-birth 
abortion that unfortunately we are now all too familiar with. An 
abortionist who violates this ban would be subject to fines, a maximum 
of 2 years imprisonment, or both. This ban includes an exception for 
those situations in which a partial-birth abortion is deemed necessary 
to save the life of the mother.
  After two Presidential vetoes, this ban will finally become law and 
the performance of this barbaric procedure will come to an end. I am 
pleased to bring this conference report, which is the product of a 
House and Senate conference meeting held earlier this week, before the 
House. This bill, nearly identical to this conference report, passed 
the House of Representatives this summer by a 282 to 139 vote, and 
language identical to H.R. 760 passed the House last year by a 274 to 
151 vote.
  A partial-birth abortion is an unsafe procedure that is never 
medically necessary and should be prohibited. Contrary to the claims of 
partial-birth abortion advocates, this brutal procedure remains an 
untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous procedure that has never 
been embraced by the medical profession. As a result, the United States 
Congress, after receiving and reviewing extensive evidence, voted to 
ban partial-birth abortions during the 104th, 105th, and 106th 
Congress, and at least 27 States enacted bans on this procedure. 
Unfortunately, the two Federal bans that reached President Clinton's 
desk were promptly vetoed.
  In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's 
partial-birth abortion ban, which was similar, but not identical, to 
bans previously passed by Congress. In Stenberg v. Carhart, 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.

[[Page H9143]]

  The conference report's new definition of a partial-birth abortion 
addresses the court's first concern by more clearly defining the 
prohibited procedure than the statute at issue in Stenberg. The 
conference report 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 medically necessary to preserve a 
woman's health, poses serious risk to a woman's health, and, in fact, 
is below the requisite standard of medical care.

                              {time}  1130

  The conference report's lack of a health exception is based upon 
Congress' 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' factual conclusions. In doing so, the 
Court has recognized that Congress' institutional structure makes it 
better suited than the Judiciary to assess facts based upon which it 
will make policy determinations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has 
recognized that, as an institution, ``Congress is far better equipped 
than the Judiciary to amass and evaluate vast amounts of data bearing 
upon complex issues.'' As 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' factual 
determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community 
in gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services, stating, 
``It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of the 
various issues it had before it to consider. Rather, it is enough that 
we are able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve 
the conflict as it did.''
  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 
the factual conclusions of Congress to uphold the provisions as an 
appropriate exercise of congressional authority.
  The conference report's critics cite to Boerne v. Flores for support 
of their argument that the Court will strike this ban down. Yet Boerne 
addressed Congress' authority to determine the scope of rights 
protected by the Constitution, not the issue of whether Congress' 
factual determinations should be overruled by a court.
  In Boerne, the Court explicitly confirmed that Congress' factual 
conclusion should be granted great weight, stating that it is for 
Congress in the first instance to determine whether and what 
legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the 14th amendment 
and its conclusions are entitled to much deference, and that this 
judicial deference in most cases is based not on the state of the 
legislative record Congress compiles but on due regard for the decision 
of the body constitutionally appointed to decide.
  Boerne does not stand for the proposition that Congress is bound to 
reach the same factual conclusions as the trial court did in Stenberg, 
particularly when Congress has reviewed extensive credible evidence, 
evidence that is more complete than the evidentiary record facing the 
Stenberg trial court, that directly contradicts the trial court's 
conclusions.
  Substantial evidence presented and compiled at extensive 
congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the District 
Court hearing in Stenberg and thus not included in the Stenberg trial 
record, demonstrates that a partial birth abortion is never necessary 
to preserve the health of a woman. The vast majority of partial birth 
abortions are performed on normal babies during normal pregnancies. 
Obstetricians who regularly treat patients suffering from serious 
medical complications during pregnancy or serious life-threatening 
fetal abnormalities utilize established, safe medical procedures, not 
the partial birth abortion procedure.
  Previous bills that were nearly identical to this conference report 
enjoyed 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. 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. Fortunately, we are only weeks if not days away 
from putting an end to partial birth abortions. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have a very bad combination: Members of 
Congress who want to play doctor and Members of Congress who want to 
play Supreme Court. When we put the two together, we have a description 
for some very bad medicine for the women of this country.
  Today's vote is different from previous votes. Every Member of this 
House should understand that this is not a free vote. This legislation 
will become law unless we stop it. We cannot count on the Senate, we 
cannot count on the President, and remember that this President is 
trying to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary justices. If this 
bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe vs. Wade was 
decided that Congress will have acted to criminalize the constitutional 
right to choose.
  No one should think it will end here. This is only the first, not the 
last, bill that people who want to turn back the clock will bring 
forward. If my colleagues do not believe that this bill is intended as 
a direct assault on Roe, they should ask themselves why was a 
nonbinding statement supporting the right to choose pursuant to Roe and 
opposing efforts to overturn it dropped from the bill in the conference 
committee? Do not be fooled. Do not listen to what they say. Look at 
what they are doing.
  Although this bill is blatantly and facially unconstitutional, the 
Supreme Court's decision striking down an almost identical Nebraska 
statute was a close vote. This administration is determined to pack the 
Court with justices committed to eliminating the fundamental right to 
keep government out of the most personal decisions involving women's 
life and health. So even though this bill is blatantly unconstitutional 
according to the Supreme Court, one cannot count on the Supreme Court 
maintaining that view if the President succeeds in packing it with 
reactionaries, which is why this bill is before us.
  We will not find the term ``partial birth abortion'' in any medical 
textbook. The authors of this legislation prefer the language of 
propaganda to the language of science.
  For one thing, the rhetoric behind this bill is really a rhetoric 
aimed at late-term abortion, at fetuses that look like human beings, 
that are almost born; late-term fetuses, as people understand the term. 
The fact is, though, that if we want to ban late-term abortions, I do 
not think there will be many people in this Chamber who would oppose 
that. Forty-one States have done so against almost no opposition.
  The Supreme Court has said that we have the power to ban abortions 
after viability. Most States have done so. If the horror that is to be 
addressed, the alleged horror that is to be addressed is as described, 
just put in a bill that says no abortions after fetal viability. Very 
few people would oppose it. It would pass, and that would take care of 
the problem. But that amendment was also defeated in conference because 
that is not the intent here.
  One of the problems with this bill from a constitutional point of 
view is that the term is so vaguely defined that it could easily refer 
to various different procedures that are necessary in second trimester, 
not late term, but second trimester, pre-viability abortions, when 
there are certain health problems attendant on the pregnancy. This bill 
is intended to forbid that, too, and to chill doctors from performing 
certain techniques which may be the best from a health point of view in 
second trimester abortions lest they have

[[Page H9144]]

a prosecution under this bill, even though it is not clearly defined.
  This bill reads as if the authors carefully studied the Supreme 
Court's decisions and then went out of their way to thumb their noses 
at 30 years of clear law. Unless the authors think that when the Court 
has made repeated and clear statements over 30 years of what the 
Constitution requires that the Court was just pulling our leg, this 
bill must be considered facially unconstitutional.
  Outrageously, both from a substantive point of view and a 
constitutional point of view, there is no health exception. A partial 
birth abortion as defined would be prohibited even where necessary to 
preserve the health of the mother. That is just outrageous on its face. 
But, in addition to this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we 
must have a health exception in a bill even with respect to post-
viability abortions if that bill is going to be constitutional. We 
cannot prohibit abortions or abortion procedures necessary to save the 
life or health of the mother.
  The exception for a woman's life in this bill is so narrow that it 
violates the Constitution and will place doctors in the position of 
trying to guess just how grave a danger to her life a pregnancy must 
pose to a woman before they can be confident that protecting her will 
not result in jail time.
  I know that some of my colleagues do not like the clear requirements 
of the Constitution, but that is the law of the land, and no amount of 
rhetoric will change that. The drafters of this bill, as the 
distinguished chairman said a few minutes ago, say that the findings 
included in the bill, the findings that so-called partial birth 
abortions are never medically necessary, that these findings get around 
the constitutional requirement as established by the Supreme Court, 
that a medical procedure necessary to preserve the life or health of a 
woman cannot be denied. But Congress is not a doctor, and certainly 
Congress is not the doctor in a particular procedure performed on a 
particular woman. Only her doctor, who knows her medical condition, can 
decide what is medically necessary.
  The Supreme Court has made clear that it is not interested in 
Congress' findings of fact, despite what the distinguished chairman 
said. Boerne and other cases, though they pay lip service to Congress' 
findings of fact, toss them out routinely. The Supreme Court will not 
ignore the significant body of medical opinion contradicting what the 
sponsors of the bill say.
  Many supporters of this bill think all abortion is infanticide. They 
are entitled to their view, but it is not the mainstream view. This 
bill would foist this fringe belief on American women. This bill would 
criminalize abortions in the second trimester and turn doctors treating 
women with dangerously deformed fetuses, those that can never be born 
alive, into criminals.
  We could prohibit post-viability abortions in situations in which a 
woman's life and health is not in jeopardy, but this bill does not do 
that. That is where the abortion itself would not put the woman's life 
or health in jeopardy. But that is not what this bill does. Forty-one 
States, as I said already, ban post-viability abortions. Almost nobody 
would oppose that bill. But that is not this bill.
  Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, and one of the most 
radical opponents of a woman's right to choose, has called this bill a 
political scam and a public relations gold mine. He is right. The real 
purpose of this bill is not as we have been told, to save babies, but 
to save elections. Unfortunately, today, women's health takes a back 
seat to politics and political extremism.
  Hopefully, the Constitution still serves as a bulwark against such 
efforts. Regrettably, we cannot be sure the current efforts to pack the 
courts will not succeed. We should all vote today as if women's lives 
depend on it. They do. And I hope this Chamber, this House will reject 
this bill, as it ought to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 for his leadership on this important issue.
  It has been almost a decade since the gruesome practice of partial 
birth abortion escaped the shadowy corners of the abortion clinics and 
was revealed to the public. In the years that followed, we have seen an 
overwhelming majority of the American people, many in the medical 
community, and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers at all levels of 
government push for an end to this barbaric procedure.
  In fact, the first initiative in Congress to ban partial birth 
abortions started with a small group of us back in 1995. When I first 
learned that these horrific acts were occurring, I thought for sure 
that they would be outlawed at least by the time we celebrated the new 
millennium. Yet Presidential vetoes, confounding court decisions, and 
tenacious partial birth abortion advocates have maintained this 
particularly troubling form of abortion in this country.
  We stand here today, having overcome many obstacles, with a strong 
bipartisan majority in the House ready to stop a procedure that is akin 
to infanticide, with a President willing to stand up for the culture of 
life in America, with constitutional legislation that should satisfy 
any unbiased and open-minded court.
  Of course, we will still hear vocal protests on the floor today and 
in the courts once this bill becomes law. Contrary to the claims of 
partial birth abortion advocates, however, this barbaric procedure has 
never been embraced by the mainstream medical community and remains 
untested, unproven, and absolutely dangerous.
  The most common assertion that a partial birth abortion is necessary 
to preserve the health of the mother is simply inconsistent with the 
overwhelming weight of authority. Virtually all evidence, including 
information we obtained at extensive legislative hearings, demonstrates 
that partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never 
medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. In fact, according to 
the American Medical Association, and I quote, ``There is no consensus 
among obstetricians about its use;'' and, ``It is not in the medical 
textbooks.''

                              {time}  1145

  Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the standard textbook on abortion 
procedures, has testified that he had ``very serious reservations about 
this procedure,'' and he would ``dispute any statement that this is the 
safest procedure to use.''
  Those who continue to espouse the view that partial-birth abortion 
may be the most appropriate abortion procedure for some women in some 
circumstances have failed to identify such circumstances. Most in the 
mainstream medical community continue to view partial-birth abortion as 
nothing more than an experimental procedure, the safety and efficacy of 
which has never been confirmed. The American Association of American 
Physicians and Surgeons wrote to me earlier this year and stated 
``partial-birth abortion has no medical indications. We can conceive of 
no circumstance in which it would be needed to save the life or 
preserve the health of a mother.'' Clearly, women deserve better than 
this.
  Partial-birth abortion is also brutal and inhumane to the nearly-born 
infant. Virtually all of the infants subjected to this procedure are 
alive and feel excruciating pain. In fact, the infant's perception of 
painful stimuli at this stage of development is more intense than that 
of newborn infants and older children.
  In testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Brenda Pratt 
Schaefer, a registered nurse, captured the true horror of partial-birth 
abortion. Ms. Schaefer observed Dr. Martin Haskell, who first 
introduced this rogue procedure to the abortion community over 10 years 
ago, use the partial-birth abortion procedure on at least three 
different babies. Describing what she saw performed on a child who was 
26\1/2\ weeks along, she testified, ``Dr. Haskell went in with forceps 
and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal, 
then delivered together the baby's body and the arms, everything but 
the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's 
little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little

[[Page H9145]]

feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of 
his head and the baby's arms jerked out like a startle reaction, like a 
flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor 
opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the 
opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely 
limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw 
the baby in a pan along with the placenta and the instruments he had 
just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and 
she said it was just reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect, 
angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life.'' That is what this 
nurse said when she saw this happen.
  I ask my colleagues in the House to quickly approve our conference 
report so we may send this important legislation to the President. 
Every day that we delay is another day that an unborn baby boy suffers 
unconscionably. Every day that we delay is another day that a baby 
girl's life is brutally ended. Every day that we delay is another day 
that we continue to live this national tragedy.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on some 
of what we just heard.
  Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Women's Association, an 
organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated 
to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, states, 
``We recognize this legislation is an attempt to ban a procedure that 
in some circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative 
available to save the life and health of the woman.''
  The American Public Health Association with 50,000 members from over 
50 public health occupations writes the same. So to say it is 
universally recognized that there is no medical necessity for the 
procedures described in this bill or perhaps described in the imprecise 
definition of this bill is not correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
conference report on partial-birth abortion. This legislation injects 
government into the private medical decisions made by a woman, her 
family, and her doctor; and in so doing, this bill violates a 
fundamental principle at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship, 
that the doctor in consultation with the patient and based on that 
patient's individual circumstances must choose the most appropriate 
method of care for the patient.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that with a very small handful 
of exceptions, we are not trained physicians. We have no business 
interfering with a woman's medical privacy. Additionally, this bill is 
unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect 
the health of the mother. Simple humanity alone should be sufficient to 
justify a health exception. But if my colleagues need more, the U.S. 
Supreme Court held in Stenberg v. Carhart that the Nebraska ban was 
unconstitutional because there was no health exception for the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, why would we pass something that is already known to be 
unconstitutional? Simply put, this bill prevents doctors from doing 
their jobs and will prevent physicians from providing the best and 
safest care for their patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
conference report before us.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
conference report on the partial-birth abortion ban. Every year 
thousands of women are subjected to this traumatic medical procedure. 
It is routinely used during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. I 
know it sounds horrendous, and it is horrendous because it kills the 
baby just seconds before he or she takes their first breath.
  This congressional body must act now to preserve the future of the 
next generation and of their mothers, or this Nation will reap the 
horrible consequences of allowing partial-birth abortion to continue. 
Some opponents like to say that it is safe, that the procedure is safe, 
and they are wrong. They have not informed the public on the effects of 
this practice on women. Numerous medical practitioners and the AMA have 
testified in committee that partial-birth abortion is never medically 
necessary in any situation and is severely below the standard of good 
quality care. Partial-birth abortion seriously threatens a mother's 
health and her ability to carry her future children to term. I urge my 
colleagues to remember their duty and vote for the conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that America 
understand what is going on here today. This is more about 30-second 
ads in the next political campaign than it is about what is right and 
wrong.
  I was a member of the conference committee, and we offered to reach 
across the aisle and do something that I think we can all agree on, 
which is to say that late-term abortions should not be an elective 
procedure; and I actually strongly believe that. You should not have a 
late-term abortion unless there is some overwhelming need, either you 
are going to die or there is going to be a very serious health 
consequence if it is not done. Only then, if that is not the case, does 
the government have a right to step in.
  I look at this bill and I see the findings are just not correct. To 
say that this is never medically necessary is simply not true.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressmen in the conference committee and here in 
the House talk about these circumstances as if they actually knew what 
was going on. As it turns out, I actually know Vicki Wilson personally. 
Her mother-in-law, Susie Wilson, and I served together on the board of 
supervisors, and I remember when Susie found out that her daughter-in-
law's pregnancy had gone terribly wrong. It was in the eighth month. 
They found out that the child they hoped to have, they had picked a 
name already, Abigail, that the brains had formed completely outside 
the cranium. There was no way that they were going to have a healthy 
child. And so the question soon became how was Vicki going to survive 
this, number one; and, number two, survive it so she and her husband, 
Bill, who is also a doctor, might have a child. They wanted to have a 
daughter.
  Susie Wilson called me and my colleague on the board, Dianne McKenna, 
throughout the 2 days that this procedure, which, by the way, is not 
called partial-birth in the medical terminology, was going on; and 
Susie stayed with her daughter-in-law throughout the procedure.
  To say that a bunch of Congressmen know what is best for this family 
is really an insult to the American people, and especially to women. So 
American women, watch out, these Congressmen are wanting to decide 
whether you survive and have a chance to have another child, and really 
to make the most personal decision for you instead of you making it 
with your husband and doctor. I think it is wrong, and I hope that we 
turn this bill down.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great anticipation that 
our Nation is nearing the end of a tragic chapter in our American 
history, one in which the most helpless among us are vulnerable to the 
most heinous crimes. I believe that, with the passage of the partial-
birth abortion ban, we will look back and remember this day as the day 
that America began to find its way back to its conscience.
  Today we will hear people talking about choice when they know this 
bill is not about choice. We will hear about them talk about abortion, 
and this bill is really not about abortion. This bill substantively is 
about one procedure, one procedure that is so painful to an unborn baby 
that even the most extreme proponent of abortion has to look at it and 
say it shocks even their conscience.
  This bill is simply about preventing egregious and unnecessary pain 
to an unborn child. Or if Members want to pick a different 
nomenclature, a fetus.
  While everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, people are not 
entitled to their own facts. On partial-birth abortion, the facts are 
out. The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is

[[Page H9146]]

never really medically necessary. Partial-birth abortion is not a rare 
procedure. It happens many times, and it is not limited to mothers or 
babies who are in danger. It is performed on healthy women and healthy 
babies, and that is what the facts are.
  The overwhelming testimony is that an unborn child experiences more 
pain at this particular juncture than it does even after it is born. 
This bill is not about having an abortion; it is about whether or not 
you can have a partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is 
repugnant to civilized society. Partial-birth abortion goes beyond 
abortion on demand. The baby involved is not unborn. This procedure is 
infanticide, and its cruelty stretches the limits of human decency.
  This issue comes down to one simple question: Is there no limit, is 
there no amount of pain, is there no procedure that is so extreme that 
we can apply to this unborn child or this fetus that we are willing as 
a country to say that just goes too far?
  Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion goes too far, and I hope we will 
pass this conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 the conference report on S. 3, in opposition to the underlying bill, 
the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and in strong 
opposition to passing legislation that endangers the health of women 
and violates the U.S. Constitution.
  Make no mistake about it, S. 3 endangers the health and safety of 
women. If this bill is signed into law, Congress will take the 
extraordinary step of banning a medical procedure that many physicians 
have concluded is safe for women.

                              {time}  1200

  In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
concluded in their September, 2000, statement of policy that the 
procedure banned under S. 3 may be ``the best or most appropriate 
procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the 
health of a woman.''
  Congress should not second-guess the expertise of physicians. 
Likewise, Congress should not interfere with the doctor-patient 
relationship and limit the options available to women to protect their 
health. But this is exactly what the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act of 2003 does. It endangers women's health by making a procedure 
that is the safest option for many women illegal and unavailable.
  However, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not stop at 
endangering a woman's health. This bill also blatantly violates the 
Constitution of the United States. In the Stenberg decision, the 
Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska statute that is practically 
identical to the legislation we are talking about today. The Supreme 
Court struck down the Nebraska statute as unconstitutional because it 
failed to contain a provision that would provide an exception to the 
ban when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life or the health 
of the woman.
  Despite the Supreme Court's clear and explicit ruling that a law 
banning partial-birth abortion procedures must have an exception to 
protect the life or health of the mother, the drafters of S. 3 have 
refused to include the exception when the procedure is necessary to 
protect the health of the mother. By failing to include this health 
exception, the law is unconstitutional.
  I oppose this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the 
opportunity to rise in support of this conference report. No fewer than 
77 percent of the general public supports a ban on this horrible 
procedure known as partial-birth abortion. 77 percent. No fewer than 25 
States have passed laws banning this procedure. Since 1995, this House 
has passed a ban on this procedure in every session, the 104th, the 
105th, the 106th, the 107th; and now the 108th Congresses support this 
ban.
  Our opponents tell us that this law would be unconstitutional. It is 
clear that the committee has addressed the concerns of the Stenberg 
court. It is clear that this is a gruesome procedure which should never 
be allowed in a civilized society. Today is the day we will finally 
complete our task. We are going to vote on the side of civilization and 
compassion.
  I wonder where we would be headed if we would continue to be a 
society that allowed this type of gruesome procedure, but fortunately 
today we are going to win, and a lot of innocent babies are going to 
win. A lot of innocent women are going to win. We are getting the point 
across and certainly have gotten it across to the general public that 
partial-birth abortion crosses the line. Partial-birth abortion nears 
infanticide, as former Senator and the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan had 
stated.
  I am proud to be a supporter of this bill. I am proud that this House 
has passed it consecutively and patiently redrawn it to make sure that 
it comports with the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report. I commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for 
supporting this. I urge a positive vote on the conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-
called partial-birth abortion ban conference report. This legislation 
is dangerous and deceptive; it is politically driven and filled with 
mischaracterizations for the sole purpose of inflaming the abortion 
debate. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this report.
  Everyone in this House knows that ``partial birth'' is a political 
term, not a medical term. It was invented as political rhetoric 
designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the bill 
that passed the House this Congress would apply to more than just a 
single abortion procedure, the intact D&E or the D&X procedure, to 
include prohibitions on abortions well before viability. It is clear 
that the bill opens up a slippery slope where its ultimate goal is to 
ban abortion entirely.
  The partial-birth abortion ban is opposed by numerous medical and 
health organizations. Among them are the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's 
Association and America Public Health Association, and the Medical 
Association of my State, California. All of these groups understand how 
the ban prevents women from receiving the level of medical care that 
would ensure their safety and their well-being. Most importantly, they 
recognize the fact that such medical care decisions must be left to the 
judgment of the physician and the woman.
  We need to stop playing doctors here in this governmental 
institution. It is an intrusion into the woman's physical and mental 
health. No one on this floor is qualified to make that decision. The 
access to abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed protection. It is a 
private medical decision that should not be dictated by the Federal 
Government. I urge a strong ``no'' on this conference report.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, this truly is a historic moment in the House. 
I want to commend the chairman and the subcommittee chairman for their 
leadership on this issue.
  The subcommittee chairman spoke about Brenda Pratt Shafer who, in 
1993, a nurse with 13 years' experience, was assigned to an abortion 
clinic by her nursing agency. She was, quote, very pro-choice at the 
time. We have heard her actual words as she describes the procedure, 
what she saw. Ms. Shafer never returned to that clinic after witnessing 
that partial-birth abortion.
  Those in favor of this procedure believe that Roe v. Wade is 
sacrosanct, that we should leave this pressing moral question to the 
whims of the unelected judges across the street. This type of abortion, 
partial-birth abortion, is more like a legal technicality. The baby 
must be delivered feet first so that the doctor actually forces the 
head to stay in the birth canal. Otherwise, he would be born and 
actually breathe. Most people would call this murder. But right now it 
is just a technicality.

[[Page H9147]]

  There is no excuse for this procedure in a civilized nation. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would ask the 
gentlewoman to remove the sticker.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think my words will speak to 
my commitment; and it is in support of the Immigrant Freedom Ride that 
is here on this campus asking for justice, as we ask today; and I want 
to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his leadership 
over the years on this issue, the constitutionality, if you will, of 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have remarks that I will submit into the Record ably 
done by my staff member and doctoral candidate, Sophia King, but I 
think today it is important to chronicle the history of this because I 
know that my good friend and colleague who has been a leader on this, 
the gentleman from New York, knows that we have been almost 10 years of 
generating over and over this repetitive legislation, really defined by 
the Gingrich Congress of 1995.
  The first time that I came to this Congress, I had the pleasure of 
serving on the Committee on the Judiciary with the Honorable Pat 
Schroeder; and we sat through a number of passionate statements by 
women who pleaded with the Committee on the Judiciary to not take the 
rights away from them, their families, their God and as well their 
physicians. Tragically, this Congress did not listen then; and we 
continue year after year after year not to listen.
  I heard the passionate pleas of mothers who said, all I want to do is 
to procreate and to have a healthy child. We heard the testimony of 
physicians who articulated the fact that if that mother did not have 
the procedure so named partial-birth abortion, they would not be able 
to have the opportunity to give birth and to have a nurturing 
relationship with a child.
  And, lo and behold, those who suggest that they will take the role of 
God and now indicate what doctors and family members and mothers and 
God have them to do, we have this abominable legislation again on the 
floor of the House with the real notion that this is not serious. 
Because if it was serious, it would be a provision that protected the 
health of the mother. That is not in there. If it was serious, they 
would listen to the American Medical Association, the American College 
of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.
  Interestingly enough, my good friend previously on the floor indicts 
the Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade, and Roe v. Wade is good law 
of which they took out of the bill, the Senate language, he indicts the 
very Supreme Court that elected the President of the United States, or 
selected him. That is an interesting conflict from my good friends on 
the other side of the aisle.
  I maintain that this is a frivolous piece of legislation; and if the 
States want to do it, Mr. Speaker, then let them do it. But how dare 
you put yourself, this body, in the seat or the place of a mother who 
has seen a tragedy occur that will eliminate her opportunity to 
procreate. How dare we do it. This should be voted down, and we should 
never see this travesty come again and never take up the Supreme Court 
and indict them when they elected the very person that serves in the 
White House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 
Conference Report (S. 3). Once again this body is considering anti-
choice legislation that is unconstitutional and dangerous to women's 
health. I oppose this legislation and will continue to oppose any 
attempt to criminalize a woman's constitutional right to choose.
  Contrary to repeated anti-choice claims, this bill does not ban only 
one procedure. S. 3 is not constitutional and the public as well as the 
medical community does not support this legislation. A recent poll 
confirms that a solid majority of Americans (61 percent) opposes this 
legislation because it fails to protect women's health.
  This legislation is not only unconstitutional but it is yet another 
attempt to ban so-called ``partial birth abortions.'' This is a non-
medical term. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar statute in 
Stenberg v. Carhart. The Court invalidated a Nebraska statute banning 
so-called ``partial birth abortions.'' So, this legislation is at odds 
with the court's ruling. In Roe v. Wade, the court held that women had 
a privacy interest in electing to have an abortion, based on the 5th 
and 14th Amendments' concept of personal liberty.
  Despite the fact that the Supreme Court struck down legislation 
virtually identical to S. 3 in the year 2000, anti-choice Members of 
Congress continue to jeopardize women's health by promoting this 
legislation to advance their ultimate goal of eliminating a woman's 
right to choose altogether. The Supreme Court struck down legislation 
calling for a so-called ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban'' just two years 
ago. So-called ``partial-birth abortion'' would ban safe, pre-viability 
abortions in violation of a woman's right to choose.
  This type of legislation ignores the Supreme Court's explicit 
directive that women's health must be of the utmost concern. The 
Supreme Court, during the twenty-nine years since it recognized the 
right to choose abortion, has consistently required that when a State 
restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the paramount 
consideration. Just two years ago, the Supreme Court stated 
unequivocally that every abortion restriction--including bans on so-
called ``partial-birth abortion''--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.'' Carhart, 
530 U.S. at 931.
  Directly ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, so-called ``Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban'' legislation does not allow an abortion necessary 
for a woman's health.
  In Carhart, the Supreme Court rejected the argument made by this 
bill's sponsors that the legislation need not contain a health 
exception because intact dilation and extraction (``intact D&E'' or 
``D&X'') is never necessary for a woman's health. The Supreme Court 
stated that a law that ``altogether forbids D&X creates a significant 
health risk,'' and therefore, is unconstitutional. Carhart, 530 U.S. at 
938.
  This bill would ban safe medical procedures, imposing an undue burden 
on women. The bill's sponsors use rhetoric about full-term fetuses, but 
this bill would ban abortions performed before a fetus is viable. Like 
the law before the Supreme Court in Carhart, ``even if the statue's 
basic aim is to ban dilation and extraction (D&X,) its language makes 
clear that it also covers a much broader category of procedures,'' and 
therefore, imposes an unconstitutional burden on women. Carhart, 530 
U.S. at 939.
  Even if such legislation banned only intact dilation and extraction 
(``intact D&E'' or ``D&X'') abortions, it would compromise women's 
health. Legislation that contends that D&X is unsafe is simply untrue. 
If is a safe method of abortion and is within the accepted standard for 
care. ACOG has concluded that D&X is a safe procedure and may be the 
safest option for some women. And the Supreme Court explained in 
Carhart that ``significant medical authority supports the proposition 
that in some circumstances, D&X would be the safest procedure.'' 530 
U.S. at 932. Indeed, the Court concluded that ``a statute that 
altogether forbids D&X creates a significant health risk.'' Id. at 938.
  The D&X abortion procedure offers a variety of safety advantages over 
other procedures. Compared to D&E abortions, D&X involves less risk of 
uterine performation or cervical laceration because the physician makes 
fewer passes into the uterus with sharp instruments. There is 
substantial medical evidence that D&X reduces the risk of retained 
fetal tissue, a complication that can cause maternal death or injury. 
The D&X procedure is a safer option that other procedures for women 
with particular health conditions. Finally, D&X procedures usually take 
less time than other abortion methods used at a comparable stage of 
pregnancy, which can have significant health advantages.
  In fact, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
(ACOG) has concluded, D&X may be ``the best or most appropriate 
procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the 
health of a woman.''
  This ban would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best 
treatment for a patient. Physicians must be free to make clinical 
determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care.
  Allowing physicians to exercise their medical judgement is not only 
good policy--it ia also the law. In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 
(2000), the Supreme Court ruled that all abortion legislation must 
allow the physician to exercise reasonable medical judgment, even where 
medical opinions differ. The Court made clear that exceptions to an 
abortion ban cannot be limited to situations where the health risk is 
an ``abortion necessity,'' nor can the law require unanimity of medical 
opinion as to the need for a particular abortion method. Id. at 937.

[[Page H9148]]

  Mr. Speaker, women and their families, along with their doctors, are 
better than politicians at making decisions about medical care. 
Congress should not take decisions about medical treatment out of the 
hands of doctors and families. I must oppose this attempt to disregard 
the Supreme Court's clear message in Stenberg v. Carhart. Abortion bans 
that fail to protect a woman's health by banning safe abortion methods 
are unconstitutional.

      proposed amendment for conference committee meeting on s. 3

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally 
     protected medical procedure throughout the United States 
     since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 
     (1973)); and
       (2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade 
     established constitutionally based limits on the power of 
     States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to 
     terminate a pregnancy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 
     U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important 
     constitutional right; and
       (2) such decision should not be overturned.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my 
colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, for his leadership on this issue. This bill has been called 
an abomination, frivolous.
  Let us quickly examine what a partial-birth abortion is. In a 
partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby, feet 
first, out of the womb and into the birth canal as we can see right 
here, except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged 
just inside the cervix. The abortionist punctures the base of the 
baby's skull with a surgical instrument, like a long surgical scissor 
or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trocar. Then he inserts the 
catheter into the womb 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. That is what 
is occurring in America today. This is happening right now. This vote 
will stop this from happening. I urge all of us to pass this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for bringing this diagram to the floor of the House so that 
we may be able to graphically see how a partial-birth abortion is 
performed. The difference between a partial-birth abortion, which this 
bill will ban, and first-degree murder is three inches. Three inches. 
That is why this bill is not a travesty. This bill is a serious attempt 
to get rid of a gruesome and barbaric procedure. Anyone who does not 
think this procedure is gruesome and barbaric ought to look at the 
diagram that the gentleman from Wisconsin has presented to the House.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank gentleman for his leadership. I urge 
all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to vote for this and to 
save lives.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, after commemorating the 30th anniversary 
of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade just 9 months ago, we 
are reminded again that a woman's right to choose is never secure. In 
the debate today over so-called partial-birth abortion, do not ever 
forget this is about Roe v. Wade. We are here because supporters of 
this bill disagree with the Supreme Court.
  Let us be clear. This is not about outlawing one method of abortion. 
It is about restricting access to safe medical procedures throughout an 
entire pregnancy. Ultimately, it is about the right of all women to 
choose. Proponents of this legislation want to overturn Roe v. Wade and 
Stenberg v. Carhart and go back to the days when women had no options, 
when they left the country or died in back alleys.

                              {time}  1215

  In reflecting on the long debate over this bill starting in 1995, I 
remember something that I heard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor say once. 
She said that she was drawn to the law because she saw the role it 
plays in shaping our society. ``I don't think law often leads 
society,'' she said. ``It really is a statement of society's beliefs in 
a way.''
  The proponents of this bill and I would likely agree with Justice 
O'Connor, except I believe that Roe v. Wade continues to express our 
society's beliefs, and they do not.
  Roe said that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is private and 
personal and should be made by a woman and her family and her clergy 
without undue interference from the Government. I and the American 
people still believe that, supporters of this bill do not. Roe and 
Stenberg said that 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 
health must come first and be protected throughout her pregnancy. I and 
the American people still believe this, supporters of the bill do not.
  And Roe and Stenberg said that determinations about viability and 
health risks must be made for each woman by her physician. A blanket 
Government decree about medicine is irresponsible and dangerous. I and 
the American people still believe that, supporters of the bill do not.
  I urge my colleagues to not be fooled today by those who claim that 
sufficient changes have been made so that this bill agrees with the 
principles outlined in Roe and Stenberg. Make no mistake. The bill 
before us today still does not contain the health exception, which 
means it is still unconstitutional. It still bans abortion throughout 
pregnancy, which means it is still unconstitutional. Congress is wrong 
to pass this by ban, and the President would be wrong to sign it. Mr. 
Speaker, we believe that women matter. We believe that their health and 
lives are irreplaceable and worth protecting. That is why we oppose 
this ban. I urge my colleagues to respect the law of the land and 
support the values in Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart. Leave 
decisions in the hands of families. Protect the health of women.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the next two speakers on our side are 
medical doctors. We have heard a lot about people playing doctor here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), M.D.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker let me just say this. What we are hearing from the 
opposition over and over again is that this is an attack on Roe v. 
Wade. It is not an attack on Roe. I will stand here and tell the 
Members that I think that January 22, 1973, will live on as a day in 
infamy, and I wish it had never happened, but this is not an attack on 
Roe v. Wade. This is an attack on one procedure, one abhorrent 
procedure called partial-birth abortion.
  The other side wants to say that there is no medical terminology of 
``partial-birth abortion.'' It is as much a medical terminology as to 
say taking somebody's appendix out or a gallbladder out is medical 
terminology. I do not know what euphemism they want to use for this 
procedure, but this is a partial-birth abortion. Someone said earlier 
that it is akin to infanticide. I am not a legal scholar, but to me it 
is infanticide because when one delivers that human outside the 
mother's womb, and it has a beating heart, it no longer is a fetus. It 
is an infant, and if they kill it at that point, and that is what 
partial-birth abortion is, then that is infanticide.
  Vote for this conference report, both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time 
and also for his leadership.
  I rise today in very strong opposition to this conference report that 
would deny women their constitutionally protected rights, endanger 
women's health and criminalize safe medical practices. This is an 
attack on Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents 
yet another victory in this President's very aggressive and very 
hostile antiwoman agenda, and like

[[Page H9149]]

provisions of another attack on our civil rights, in this instance the 
Patriot Act, it is dangerous and it is unconstitutional. That is why if 
and when this fatally flawed and dangerous conference report is signed 
into law, it will be challenged in court.
  Pregnancy and childbirth are among the most intimate and the most 
personal experiences of a woman's life. Meddling in these intensely 
private affairs violates our Constitution. Our freedom to choose is 
every woman's fundamental right. This should be a medical decision made 
between a woman, her family, and her doctor and her clergy. Government 
has no right to interfere. This bill is outrageous. It is reckless and 
it is unconstitutional. This conference report should be defeated here. 
Otherwise, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade 
must be upheld. Let us not go down this slippery slope and try to 
unravel it in this very dangerous and deceitful way. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this conference report.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess), M.D., for another medical opinion.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a physician who has dedicated my life to the 
healthcare of women. I have delivered over 3,000 babies. The only 
reason to select the partial-birth abortion procedure is to ensure that 
a baby is dead when it is delivered. As a doctor, 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 may be delivered 
by C-section. Whether the infant lives or dies in that scenario depends 
on 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 this procedure, the partial-birth 
abortion procedure, is predetermined by the nature of the procedure 
performed and is uniformly fatal to the baby.
  In 1995, a panel of 12 doctors representing the American Medical 
Association voted unanimously to recommend banning the partial-birth 
abortion procedure, calling it ``basically repulsive.'' I agree with 
the AMA. It is repulsive. It is unnecessary. And, fortunately, it will 
soon be illegal.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly, including from the last 
speaker, that so-called partial-birth abortion is never a necessary 
procedure to save the life and health of the mother, but fact is the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I am reading 
now from the committee report, minority views, ``the leading 
professional association of physicians who specialize in the health 
care of women, has concluded that the D & X'' procedure, which is one 
procedure described by partial-birth abortion, ``is a safe procedure 
and may be the safest option for some women. ACOG has explained that 
intact D & E, including D & X, is a minor, and often safer, variant of 
the `traditional' nonintact D & E. ACOG has also stated that D & X `may 
be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance 
to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Only the physician, 
in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can 
make this decision.' ''
  That is why relying on this kind of medical evidence, ``the Supreme 
Court concluded in Stenberg that `significant medical authority 
supports the proposition that in some circumstances D & X would be the 
safest procedure.' Indeed, the Court concluded that `a statute that 
altogether forbids D & X creates a significant health risk.' ''
  So much for the so-called findings in this bill, the Supreme Court 
has already thrown them in the trash basket.
  That is why, in addition to the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, numerous other medical groups have publicly opposed 
attempts by Congress to pass this legislation, and among those which 
have labeled this legislation as injurious to women's health, and 
therefore they oppose it, are the American Public Health Association, 
the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's 
Association, the California Medical Association, the American College 
of Nurse Practitioners, the Association of Reproductive Health 
Professionals, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the 
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Reproductive Health. 
And, finally, ``contrary to the claims of the sponsors of'' this bill, 
``the American Medical Association does not support any criminal 
abortion ban legislation.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already said, in so many 
words, that any legislation that altogether forbids some of the kinds 
of procedures that would be described by this legislation creates a 
significant health risk for women, and, therefore, is unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the arguments that this is 
never a medically necessary procedure are refuted by all the different 
medical groups that I named and by the specific findings of the Supreme 
Court in the Stenberg case. And all the nonsense about findings by 
Congress will not avail to make this bill constitutional against the 
finding by the Supreme Court. This is a Supreme Court that does not 
care that much about findings by Congress anyway, and that has said, in 
so many words, that a statute that altogether forbids D & X, one of the 
procedures that clearly would be outlawed by this bill, creates a 
significant health risk and an unconstitutional health risk.
  So this bill is clearly unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional 
because it does not give people a right to do what the physician and 
the patient regard as the safest procedure to save the health and life 
of the mother, which the Supreme Court says they must do. But beyond 
that, this is clearly an assault on Roe v. Wade, whatever else anybody 
may say.
  If it is not an assault on Roe, if it is not deliberately an assault, 
getting the nose under the camel's tent to try to ban all abortions, to 
try to say that women should not have the right to make this choice, to 
try to say that the men and women in this Chamber have more to say 
about a woman's health choice than she does herself, then why did the 
conferees, the members of the conference, remove the nonbinding 
language that said this did not attack Roe v. Wade? Because they were a 
little more honest. The Senate was a little more honest than the people 
in this House are being. They recognize this for what it is, an attack 
on Roe v. Wade, and, frankly, the majority Members of the House also 
wanted to remove that language, and they were honest the day before 
yesterday.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the current Supreme Court clearly considers this 
unconstitutional. A future Supreme Court packed with reactionary 
appointees by the President might not. This puts at risk the right of 
women to choose. And the fundamental question here is, as it has always 
been, there are fundamentally different religious views about when life 
begins, about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and we 
are all entitled to our views, be they motivated by religion or moral 
fervor or whatever. What we are not entitled to do is to use the force 
of law to impose the religious views of some people on other people who 
do not agree with that and to say to a woman they must risk their life, 
they must risk their health because we do not think it is right for 
them to have an abortion. That is what this is about.

                              {time}  1230

  That is what this is about. The right to choose is the key right 
here, and this bill is a direct assault on that. Therefore, we ought to 
oppose it. It will be a sad day when this House passes this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for 
the work, long, long work that he has placed into this bill. The people 
of the United States owe the chairman a great debt; and more 
importantly, children owe the gentleman a great debt for his work on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of this long debate that actually began 10 
years ago, the opponents of the Partial-Birth

[[Page H9150]]

Abortion Ban Act tell us that this bill will not save a single life. 
And I think we have to admit, it is a limited bill. After all, when we 
pass this bill, abortion will stay legal, its practitioners will remain 
in business, and heaven will still be crowded with America's invisible 
orphans. But its limitations are beside the point. Because like the 
children it protects, Mr. Speaker, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
may be small, but not insignificant.
  Make no mistake about it: our action today represents a big pivot in 
America's difficult answer to the abortion question. After a generation 
of bitter rhetoric, the American people have turned away from the 
divisive politics of abortion and embraced the inclusive politics of 
life.
  Over the last 10 years, Americans on all sides of the abortion debate 
have learned about the partial-birth abortion procedure. They have 
recoiled at its barbarism and decided it has no place in a moral 
society. They have called on us to answer the muted cries of the 
innocent. Their message to us today and our message to the world is 
very simple: we can do better. For pregnant mothers, however desperate; 
for unborn children, however unwanted; and for our compassionate 
Nation, however divided. America can do better for them all, starting 
with the overdue prohibition on this cruel, dangerous, and medically 
unnecessary procedure.
  But this, I say to my colleagues, is not a day of celebration. 
Passing this bill will be a victory, to be sure, but a victory for 
humanity, not just one side of this debate. It will be a victory for 
the democratic process, which the American people have engaged one 
heart at a time, not through the heat of public argument, but through 
the warmth of private conversation. And it will be a victory for a 
Nation of good and honest people who brought to this debate a 
thoroughly American respect for every opinion and for every life.
  America can do better, Mr. Speaker, and by passing this bill today, 
at long last, we will.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out loudly in 
opposition to the conference report on S. 3 and to urge my colleagues 
to vote against the report.
  Once again, we have before us an unconstitutional and harmful bill. 
This bill would prevent doctors from being able to perform medically-
necessary abortions. The government would prohibit doctors from acting 
to protect her patient's health, intruding into the doctor-patient 
relationship. The Supreme Court recognized this inequity and has 
already made such a law unconstitutional.
  The leadership in this body insists that we ignore the Constitution 
and vote on this bill. Proponents of this bill refused to allow an 
exception for cases in which the mother's health was seriously at risk, 
and they refused to include language affirming the long-standing 
Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.
  Let's forget about the rhetoric we've been hearing from the 
proponents of this bill and talk about the truth. For us to be true to 
the Constitution, to be true to the sentiments of equality and freedom, 
women and must have control over their bodies. Instead, proponents of 
this bill, including the Bush Administration, are using this bill as 
part of a broader agenda to take away a women's Constitutionally 
guaranteed right to choose. This assault on a woman's right to control 
her body and her health must stop. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
the Conference Report.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day for those who, for 
more than 30 years, have worked to reduce the number of abortions 
performed in America. With today's vote on the Conference Report to 
accompany S. 3, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, we are finally 
closing in on the first statutory restriction on abortions--that is, 
other than appropriations restrictions--since the 1973 Supreme Court 
decision in Roe v. Wade.
  I urge our colleagues in the other body to join the House in quickly 
passing the Conference Report and sending it to the President for 
signature.
  This is also a good day for the legislative process, the art of 
compromise. Today we set aside our differences on various nuances of 
abortion and move by a decisive vote to ban a particular procedure, 
which--regardless of our differing views on the findings of Roe v. 
Wade--most of us find repugnant.
  Because of what we do here today, there will be fewer abortions, more 
adoptions, and more healthy births in years to come in the United 
States. I take great comfort in that knowledge.
  I am distressed, however, that so much of our legislative action the 
past 30 years in this body on the question of abortion has not had that 
result, but has instead polarized the views of those on both sides of 
the issue, while the number of abortions has continued to climb.
  Today we take a step in the opposite direction. Instead of dividing, 
we have come together and have agreed that there should indeed be fewer 
abortions, at least with respect to this procedure. I sincerely hope 
that the comity we have achieved on partial birth will extend, in the 
future, to other aspects of the abortion issue.
  Today I am proud of this body and proud of the process by which we 
serve our constituents.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this conference report 
to ban partial birth abortions. This is a good bill and a good day, 
though a long time in coming.
   This measure bans a procedure in which a living fetus is partially 
delivered from the womb, and then destroyed prior to the completion of 
delivery. This is a particularly appalling procedure in which the 
difference between a complete birth and an abortion is a matter of a 
few inches in the birth canal.
   There is an exception in the bill for instances in which the life of 
the mother is at risk and no other procedure will be sufficient to 
preserve the mother's life. Congress has conducted extensive hearings 
on this procedure. The medical evidence presented at these hearings 
indicates that a partial birth abortion is not necessary to preserve 
the health of the mother and is, in fact, dangerous to the mother. 
Partial birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice.'' This 
procedure offends most Americans who value the sanctity of life.
   Partial birth abortion is a particularly cruel and inhuman procedure 
which should be banned. I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this deceptive 
and dangerous conference report S. 3, brought to the floor today to ban 
what anti-choice lawmakers claim to be the so-called ``partial-birth'' 
abortion procedure. There is no medical procedure called a ``partial 
birth'' abortion. It is a political term, not a medical one. That is 
why what's happening today is so dangerous.
  If this bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe v. Wade 
that performing an abortion procedure will be deemed a criminal act. 
Even more alarming, it will be the first time in this nation's history, 
that Congress will have ever banned a particular medical procedure. 
Make no mistake about it, what this bill does is put Congress in the 
position of making life and death medical decisions appropriately left 
to physicians.
  Instead of dealing with the more pressing issues of the day--like the 
44 million people who lack health insurance in this country, the 9 
million people without jobs, or bringing our troops safely home from 
the war in Iraq--we are instead debating a safe medical procedure that 
is used only in very rare instances when a doctor determines it is the 
only procedure that can best protect the life or health of the woman.
  In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska abortion ban, 
identical to this bill, as unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart. The 
court found that the law unconstitutionally burdened a woman's right to 
choose by banning safe abortion procedures; and it lacked the 
constitutionally required exception to protect women's health. Both 
these constitutional flaws remain the bill before us today. This bill 
still lacks any health exception and remains vague so that it may be 
used to ban other safe abortion procedures in the future.
  Anti-choice lawmakers have made claims today that the majority of 
Americans are in favor of banning what they understand to be partial 
birth abortions. But, a recent ABC News poll, found that 61% of 
Americans were in fact opposed to this legislation when they are 
informed that it lacks a health exception for a woman.
  The most telling argument in this debate comes from our nation's 
medical community. They oppose this legislation. The American Medical 
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses 
Association and the American Public Health Association all oppose this 
ban. They know full well that it will override their medical decision-
making in an unprecedented and potentially life-threatening way.
  I believe that a woman's right to choose is a private and very 
personal choice, and should continue to remain that way. Women's 
decisions about their reproductive health--especially when it comes to 
something as personal as abortion--should between a woman, her family 
and her physician--not the U.S. Congress.
  I ask my colleagues to stand up for the privacy of women and oppose 
unwarranted interferences in their personal decisions. I also ask my 
colleagues to recognize that the vast majority of us in Congress have 
no medical training and are in no way qualified to choose among 
particular medical procedures. Doctors should be making medical 
determinations, not politicians. Vote no on this bill.

[[Page H9151]]

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
so-called ``partial birth abortion'' legislation before us today.
  Neither the Congress nor the courts should tell a woman how to manage 
her health or reproductive care. Unfortunately, what should be a 
private matter between a woman and her doctor has become a political 
football.
  Doctors, not politicians, should decide which surgical procedures are 
appropriate when a woman's health is in jeopardy. The anti-choice 
proponents of the bill have used highly misleading statements to cloak 
the true purpose of this bill--which is to scare doctors and deny women 
the right to choose a safe and legal abortion.
  Here are the facts:
  The bill does not ban only one procedure. ``Partial-birth'' is a 
political term, not a medical term. These bans are designed to inflame 
the abortion debate through heated, graphic rhetoric. In describing 
what is banned, the bill does not reference a recognized, established 
medical procedure. It does not exclude other procedures. In fact, the 
bill's language is deliberately vague, banning safe and common 
procedures.
  The bill is not a ``late term'' abortion ban. Because the bill lacks 
any mention of fetal viability, it would ban abortions throughout 
pregnancy. In Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the 
Supreme Court held that a woman has the right to choose legal abortion 
until viability. The Court said that states may ban abortion after that 
time, as long as exceptions are made to protect a woman's life or her 
health. In fact, 41 states have laws that address post-viability 
abortions. The legislation now before Congress is designed, in part, to 
deceive lawmakers and the American public about when abortions occur. 
Don't be fooled.
  The bill is not constitutional. In 2000, the Supreme Court found 
Nebraska's so called ``partial birth'' abortion ban unconstitutional in 
Carhart v. Stenberg. The Court found that: (1) the law 
unconstitutionally burdened a woman's right to choose by banning safe 
abortion procedures; and (2) it lacked the constitutionally required 
exception to protect women's health. These flaws are present in the 
bill now before Congress. The bill still lacks any health exception, 
and its deliberately vague language still bans more than one procedure.
  These bans are not supported by the medical community. Contrary to 
repeated anti-choice claims, the American Medical Association does not 
support this legislation. Furthermore, respected health organizations 
such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the 
American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association 
and the American Public Health Association oppose these bans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that turns back the clock on 
womens' rights in this country.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is set to 
vote on the conference report on S. 3, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act. After a number of years and several attempts, the best chance for 
success in finally outlawing this gruesome procedure is here before us 
today.
  I believe abortion has no place in our society. Partial-birth 
abortion is a procedure clearly beyond the pale. Even the medical 
community has said that this procedure is, in fact, never medically 
necessary. For all of the rhetoric from the other side about doctors 
and health care, we should listen to that medical bottom line and today 
ban this horrific procedure. Those who have seen it firsthand, those 
who understand it and have researched it, know that we are talking 
about something so close to infanticide.
  This conference report before us respects what the Supreme Court has 
told Congress about past bans, and we have worked to address their 
concerns in the best and most thorough manner. This conference report 
is constitutional, well-thought out, and has tremendous support 
nationwide.
  I strongly support this conference report and urge my colleagues to 
do so as well. Furthermore, I am happy to say that for the first time 
since Roe v. Wade passed, some 30 years ago, a restriction on abortion 
is finally going to be put into place.
  I would like to express my appreciation to the many grassroots 
organizations who worked so hard on this issue for years, to fellow 
members of Congress who diligently kept working on a resolution, and to 
President Bush for his support of this legislation and his promotion of 
life.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life . . .'' The 
Declaration of Independence tells us this.
  We are created--life is created and the womb is where that miracle of 
life develops. Biology tells us this.
  It is immoral and illegal, in America, to deliver a baby for the sole 
purpose of taking this child's life, under the guise of a medical 
procedure. The legislation at hand tells us this.
  We fight wars in the name of protecting human rights. We serve with 
human rights organizations all over this world, standing up for those 
who can't defend themselves and for those who are robbed of what many 
of us take for granted. It should be no different here today, with this 
very issue.
  So we are not here to talk about reproductive choices. We are here to 
talk about preserving human life and protecting the most defenseless 
among us from suffering a barbaric death.
  Human life should never be taken in the name of mere convenience--to 
do so is among the grossest of human rights violations. That is why 
partial-birth abortions should be banned. It is long overdue.
  I support the rule, I support the conference report and I look 
forward to the day it is signed into law to protect the lives of the 
most helpless victims of violence in our country--our children.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this statement for the 
Record as a sign of my strong disapproval for what we are about to do. 
As a pro-choice, pro-child mother and Member of Congress, I believe 
that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.
  For more than a quarter-century, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear 
line on this issue.
  As Americans and lawmakers, we are bound by the Constitution--and we 
must realize that an all-out ban on late-term abortions fails to meet 
the ``life and health of the mother'' standard the Supreme Court 
established in Roe and upheld in both Casey and Webster. The bill we 
have before us today does not take into consideration the health of the 
mother. The Supreme Court has found similar laws unconstitutional and 
will do the same with this one.
  If the bill banned all late-term abortions, but allowed for the 
constitutionally required exception when it would be necessary to save 
the mother's life or avert serious health consequences, then I would 
support it.
  The anti-women's health majority that continues to push this 
legislation is putting their own convoluted political agenda above the 
health concerns of women and above the law. The choice whether or not 
to have an abortion is a private and personal decision. It should be 
made between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God. The federal 
government has no business interfering.
  I strongly object to this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat it.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. I support this legislation 
because I support life. I believe that life begins at conception and I 
will continue fighting to protect our unborn children.
  Partial birth abortions are wrong. Under Federal law ``live birth'' 
occurs when a baby is expelled from the mother. During a partial birth 
abortion the baby is pulled out feet first until the head is the only 
part in the mother's body, then the baby is brutally murdered. Most 
partial birth abortions occur in the second trimester, when the child 
will actually gasp for air when removed from their mother.
  As a father of three I support all pro-life measures. I understand 
how precious and beautiful life is, and I am dedicated to protect life 
at all stages of development. All children should be welcomed in life 
and protected by law, and as long as I am in a position to fight, I 
will continue to fight for life.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (H.R. 760/S. 3).
  I am proud to support the effective compromise that has been reached 
on behalf of thousands of women and children in our nation. Enacting 
this legislation has been a long, hard road for many dedicated Members 
of Congress and concerned citizens across America. I commend Chairman 
Chabot for his tireless efforts to debate and pass this legislation, 
and President Bush for his commitment to sign it into law to protect 
human life.
  The grisly facts of the partial-birth abortion procedure are well 
known. Suffice it to say that the life and value of a child should not 
hinge on 3 inches--the 3 inches before a child takes its first breath 
or before a child meets the abortionist's knife. Partial-birth abortion 
has visited untold horror upon thousands of women and children since 
its inception. It would be impossible to count the physical and 
emotional cost of this procedure for the women who have experienced it, 
much less the little children who are killed before they have a chance 
at life.
  One such experience merits recounting because of its undeniable 
message for the protection of human life. In 1993, a nurse practitioner 
named Brenda Pratt Shafer was working in an abortion clinic. She was a 
pro-choice nurse who quit her job the day after she witnessed a 
partial-birth abortion. She told Members of Congress that ``what I saw 
is branded

[[Page H9152]]

forever on my mind . . . the woman wanted to see her baby [after the 
procedure], so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and 
handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, 
`I'm so sorry, please forgive me!' I was crying too. I couldn't take 
it. The baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.'' 
Her testimony stands as a powerful witness for every Member of Congress 
to vote to ban this procedure in our nation.
  Another significant testimony comes from a doctor who was asked to 
care for a baby who had undergone a partial-birth abortion and was 
still breathing. Dr. Hanes Swingle wrote his eyewitness account for the 
Washington Times: ``I admitted this slightly premature infant [to the 
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit]. His head was collapsed in on itself . . 
. I did my exam (no other anomalies were noted) . . . then pronounced 
the baby dead about an hour later. Normally, when a child is about to 
die and the parents are not present, one of the staff holds the child. 
No one held this baby, a fact that I regret to this day. His mother's 
life was never at risk.'' Dr. Hanes concluded that partial-birth 
abortions must be banned ``simply because it is the right thing to 
do.''
  Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that my home state of 
Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion 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.'' Passage 
of the conference report today will clearly show that the Congress 
stands with Justice Scalia and the many other Americans who respect the 
sanctity of human life.
  It amazes me that in the year 2003, the United States still permits 
this procedure--this act of death. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the 
research arm of Planned Parenthood, reported this year that the number 
of partial-birth abortions performed in our nation tripled between the 
years 1996 and 2000. Estimates were that about 650 such abortions were 
performed in 1996, and now 2,200 are performed annually.
  Former President Clinton shamed our nation and broke faith with women 
and children by twice vetoing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am 
proud that President Bush will reverse this record and uphold the 
promise of human life and dignity in America. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join him in this goal by voting for the conference report 
on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of my fundamental principles is that 
government not interfere with the basic freedoms for individuals and 
their families. A basic freedom is the health of women, which 
necessarily includes reproductive health choices.
  This legislation threatens that freedom by inappropriately 
intervening in the decision making of patients and their doctors. It 
goes beyond restricting the procedure. It ignores real needs of women 
and their families. This procedure has long been accepted and is at 
times the only practice 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, I was 
struck by real cases of real families that would be devastated by this 
amendment. Sadly, nothing has changed. Real families would still be 
devastated.
  The broad language is likely to be used as a wedge in further eroding 
reproductive choices. No one can predict what this Supreme Court will 
do, let alone a future one. This language would fly in the face of a 
previous ruling against Nebraska's legislation and could be a vehicle 
for judicial reinterpretation which would further restrict reproductive 
freedom. This legislation is part of an insidious ongoing assault to 
erode reproductive freedoms and would perpetuate a trend, as shocking 
as it is unfortunate, of Congress imposing its theology on our citizens 
regardless of people's own strongly held beliefs and individual needs.
  Earlier this Congress, because of the Republican leadership's 
theological clash with science, voted to make it illegal to use 
potentially life saving therapies to help with Alzheimer's- and 
Parkinson's-like degenerative and traumatic diseases leaving people 
crippled and dying. The vote was not just to deny scientific research 
here, but deny the benefits if developed anywhere else. They would make 
all our loved ones suffer in their zeal to make a point.
  People who oppose abortion should not have one. Nothing would make me 
happier than for every woman to have the knowledge, well-being, medical 
care and luck so that there would never be a need for an abortion. 
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.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it has now been more than a decade since 
partial-birth abortion was first exposed for the horrific and violent 
act that it is. In that time, tens of thousands of healthy babies have 
been brutally killed as they exited the birth canal--just moments from 
their first breath.
  Then, as now, the details of the partial-birth abortion procedure led 
to public outrage among the American people. The most recent poll on 
this issue found that 70 percent of the public favors the ban we will 
vote on today.
  How can it be that it has taken more than 10 years to ban a procedure 
so many Americans find outright repugnant and immoral? Twice, Congress 
has passed similar legislation, only to be voted by the previous 
administration.
  Today, I am grateful for the courageous stand of our current 
president, President George W. Bush, who, earlier this year in his 
State of the Union Address, called on Congress to pass the ban on 
partial-birth abortions. It is an honor to serve alongside this great 
president, and I look forward to his quick signature on this bill.
  As we consider the partial-birth abortion ban conference report 
today, I'd like to address some of the misconceptions being circulated 
by those opposed to this bill.
  Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others are claiming S. 3, The Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act, will ``halt safe, pre-viability abortions from 
occurring, which violates a woman's right to choose.'' This is simply 
false. S. 3 was crafted carefully to ensure its constitutionality. It 
addresses the concerns cited in the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart 
decision, which struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion, 
that the definition of partial-birth abortion was too vague and could 
prohibit a common abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation 
abortions. Today's bill corrects any potential for misinterpretation by 
specifically defining partial-birth abortion as:

       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.

  Secondly, some proponents of partial-birth abortion are advocating 
for a ``health'' of the mother exception in the bill. Such an exception 
is unnecessary, as the findings in the bill point out. The first 
section of S. 3 contains Congress's 14 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. In fact, the highly regarded American Medical Association has 
said the procedure is ``not good medicine'' and is ``not medically 
indicated'' in any situation. A more narrow ``life of the mother'' 
exception is included in the bill, which would allow partial-birth 
abortions in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the 
mother.
  As we vote on final passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act 
today, let us keep in mind the faces of the babies whose lives might be 
saved as a result of this bill. Many newspapers around the country have 
recently run stories about new 4-D ultrasound technology that is able 
to photograph very real-life pictures of the baby in the womb. Gracing 
the tops of the stories have been pictures of a perfectly formed baby 
in the womb with a smile on her face. The baby looks so different than 
it does just a short time later after its birth. Who could possibly 
look at these pictures and still support the killing of such beautiful 
babies by the violent death of scissors being stabbed in the baby's 
head?
  The long-awaited passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act today 
is a historic event, the answer to much prayer, and the result of the 
work of thousands of heroes across this country. I thank my colleagues 
in the House, Congressman Chabot, and Chairman Sensenbrenner, for their 
dedication to passing this bill. I also thank our House Leadership for 
making this bill a priority for so many years. Finally, I urge my 
colleagues to support this conference report and end the reprehensible 
procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I commend Mr. Chabot and Sen. 
Santorum for introducing this important legislation, and the conferees 
for their leadership in protecting the life of the unborn.
  As elected representatives, banning what is probably the most hideous 
medical procedures that could ever be performed may be one of the most 
important things we can do.
  Mythical reports by a few journalists indicate that partial-birth 
abortions are generally performed in cases in which the baby has 
profound disorders or the mother faces a dire physical threat.
  But hard facts indicated that this horrific practice is far more 
common than its proponents will admit. In truth, this piece-by-piece 
abortion is performed thousands of times annually, and the vast 
majority are performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers.
  It must be outlawed.
  Today, many will repeatedly give us the details of this so-called 
``medical procedure.''

[[Page H9153]]

  Instead, I would refer my colleagues to these medically accurate 
images. Doctors have described to us how the baby is pulled partly out 
of the mother's body, only inches from a completed birth and how an 
abortionist inserts scissors into the skull creating a hole where the 
baby's brain can be suctioned out. We have all seen pictures of the 
lifeless body pulled from the mother and tossed away like trash.
  After seeing this, why debate? Partial Birth abortion is murder--the 
devil is in the details. This isn't about a woman's right to choose. 
This is about a child's right to live. And no compassionate person 
wants to see a woman suffer the personal tragedy of abortion. Women 
deserve better than partial-birth abortion.
  I would say that the choice is simple, but there is no choice 
inherent in our duty to ensure that the sanctity of human life is never 
compromised. The unborn child has no voice and cannot protect itself. 
It is up to all of us to guarantee their voices are heard and their 
right to life is protected.
  I urge my colleagues to help protect the lives of the most innocent, 
helpless and defenseless among us and support the Partial Birth 
Abortion Ban Act.
   Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 3, the ``Partial Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003.''
   This bill prohibits a heinous and inhumane procedure. Partial birth 
abortions are a procedure in which a fully viable child is killed just 
inches from being fully delivered.
   This procedure is inhumane and barbaric, and has no place in a 
civilized society.
   Also, a partial birth abortion is not safe for women, and is never 
necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Unlike other abortion 
procedures, partial birth abortion involves killing a child that is no 
longer in the womb.
   I strongly support the passage of this conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again considering a 
deceptive, extreme, and a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to 
sensationalize the abortion debate through heated rhetoric. If this 
bill passes today it will be the first time since the passage of Roe v. 
Wade that the Congress will steal the right of women and their families 
to decide matters of their own health care in consultation with their 
doctors. This is not just an issue of women's rights anymore--this is 
an issue of preserving the privacy of all Americans to keep the 
government out of their Doctor's office.
  Just three years ago, the Supreme Court decided Stenberg v. Carhart, 
in which the Court held unconstitutional a Nebraska statute banning so-
called ``partial-birth'' abortions.
  The Court invalidated the Nebraska law for two independent reasons: 
(1) it did not contain an exception to protect the health of the woman, 
and (2) it placed an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose by 
banning the most common type of 2nd-trimester abortion procedure.
  S. 3 shows complete disregard for the Count's decision in Stenberg 
and suffers from the same two constitutional defects. It's as if the 
drafters went out of their way to thumb their nose at the Court.
  First, there is no question that S. 3 lacks an exception to safeguard 
women's health, which the Supreme Court unequivocally said was a fatal 
flaw in any restriction on abortion.
  Even the Ashcroft Department of Justice recognizes that, in order for 
any abortion regulation to be constitutional, it must contain an 
exception to protect the woman's life and health.
  This legislation attempts to justify its lack of a health exception 
by summarily asserting in the bill's ``findings'' that the banned 
procedure is ``never medically necessary.'' Not only are these findings 
demonstrably false, they do nothing to rehabilitate the bill's 
unconstitutionality.
  Much as the drafters may wish it to be otherwise, Congress cannot 
make a law constitutional simply by making ``findings'' that contradict 
the direct holding of a Court decision.
  Simply stated, the bill's failure to include an exception to protect 
women's health will make it ``Dead On Arrival'' the minute it is 
challenged in court.
  Second, the bill's definition of ``partial-birth abortion'' is so 
vague, overbroad, and internally contradictory that it would ban safe, 
pre-viability abortions in violation of woman's right to choose.
  But even if the bill covered only a single, late-term abortion 
procedure--which it does not--the bill would still endanger women's 
health by banning a procedure that the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recognized ``may be the best or 
most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the 
life or preserve the health of a woman.''
  Congress should not take decisions about medical treatment out of the 
hands of doctors and families. But that is exactly what this bill sets 
out to do.
  This legislation is a facially unconstitutional attempt to roll back 
a woman's right to choose. Fifteen pages of erroneous ``findings'' 
cannot change this sow's ear into a silk purse and rehabilitate this 
bill that puts politics ahead of women's health.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on S. 3, the ban on the procedure known as partial 
birth abortion. I was appalled when I learned of the partial birth 
abortion procedure and have been working diligently to abolish it ever 
since. This heinous procedure involves partially delivering fully 
formed babies, and then killing them. It is one of the most horrible 
forms of abortion practiced. The difference between abortion and murder 
is literally a few inches. I believe that there is no justification for 
this brutal and heartless procedure, and only the most calloused among 
us can hear the description of this procedure and not react with 
disgust.
  We must act now to ban this appalling procedure and protect the 
innocent unborn from violent deaths. A vote in favor of the conference 
report on S. 3 will stop the killing of innocent children and will send 
a message to the world that our Nation views life as a sacred and 
precious gift.
  The overwhelming majority of the American people want to ban partial-
birth abortions and no matter what your position is on abortion, this 
grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized society. Thus, this 
vote on the conference report on S. 3 gives all of us an opportunity to 
join together in protecting innocent children from this horrific and 
gruesome procedure.
  S. 3 is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I 
urge each of my colleagues to support this legislation and to protect 
those who cannot protect themselves.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, this 
so-called partial-birth abortion ban. It continues a troubling tendency 
that we have seen over the last few years for Congress to try to 
practice medicine.
  Every day, patients make medical treatment decisions that are 
difficult, that are unpleasant, that are even dangerous and matters of 
life and death. Surely pregnant women deserve the same opportunities to 
decide with their doctors the best course of treatment. However, this 
bill denies women such opportunities and restricts their ability to 
access safe and appropriate health care. Furthermore, doctors who 
determine that the banned procedure is the most appropriate treatment 
will be subject to criminal sanctions simply for providing their 
patients with the best medical care.
  All of us like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and 
that is why I support education and prevention programs to help 
families avoid unwanted pregnancies. But the question of whether or not 
to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman 
can face. Reproductive health care is a very personal, ethical, and 
medical matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and 
their families without interference from the government.
  Proponents of this bill allege that it will protect life. In reality, 
it will jeopardize the health of women across this nation. Mr. Speaker, 
this legislation should be rejected.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2003. By passing this legislation today the House 
will take its final step towards banning the truly horrifying practice 
whereby an innocent life is taken in a most gruesome way. The House has 
passed legislation in each of the last four Congresses banning partial-
birth abortions. In the 104th and 105th Congresses, President Clinton 
vetoed the partial-birth abortion bans.
  During this procedure, which is used in second and third trimester 
abortions, the infant's body id delivered, leaving only the head in the 
womb. At that point, the abortionist pierces the back of the infant's 
skull with a sharp instrument and then proceeds to vacuum out the 
infant's brain tissue, thus collapsing the skull, allowing the now-dead 
infant's body to be extracted.
  Some opponents of this legislation have argued that they fear for the 
health of the mother in an emergency. I can assure them that this 
procedure is never used in a real emergency, because it takes three 
days to prepare and complete this procedure.
  This legislation 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 
H.R. 760, 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 further provides that those findings may be admissible at 
trial.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very 
important legislation. Thanks to President Bush, this Congress finally 
has an opportunity to ban the gruesome

[[Page H9154]]

procedure without the threat of a presidential veto. By passing S. 3 
today, we will finally be able to protect innocent babies who, through 
no fault of their own, have their lives taken.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Conference Report. For 9 
years, I have been coming to this floor and speaking out against this 
barbaric procedure, so it is with great joy that I rise today in 
support of this bill knowing that we finally have a President who 
stands ready to sign this bill into law.
  I first learned of this procedure 10 years ago, in 1993, when I was 
still practicing medicine. After a long day of seeing patients in my 
office, I opened the American Medical News and saw this procedure 
described. I was shocked, not only by its flagrant violation of the 
sanctity of human life, but its brutality. How could such an awful 
procedure be legal in this country? Now 10 years later, after years of 
House and Senate votes and vetoes by former President Clinton, we will 
finally see a ban on partial birth abortion signed into law.
  The procedure is simply abhorrent. The mother is subjected to 3 days 
of slow inducement. Then the child's 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 3 inches further out of the birth 
canal, this practice would be called murder.
  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 this 
procedure is not good medicine and is not medically indicated in any 
situation.
  This procedure is clearly barbaric. It is unneccesary under any 
circumstance, and the legality of the procedure is an affront to the 
founding principles of this Nation. I remind my colleagues that we have 
come this far, we cannot stop short of doing what's right. Let's send 
this bill to President Bush's desk with the message that these lives 
are worth saving.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
conference report to ban so-called partial-birth abortions.
  Regrettably, Congress poised to pass, and the President is prepared 
to sign, a bill that can only be described as unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues not to be deceived by this legislation.
  Partial birth is not a medical, factual, or legal term. Let's be 
frank--it is a political term.
  This is not a debate about so-called partial-birth abortion or late-
term abortion. This is a debate about efforts to roll back a woman's 
constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
  The so-called partial birth abortion ban contained in this bill is 
intended to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade and I believe will be 
found unconstitutional by the courts.
  Even the sense of the Senate language included in the Senate-passed 
bill reaffirming Roe v. Wade has been stripped out of this bill.
  Supporters of this bill argue that language defining the partial-
birth abortion procedure has been tightened and that findings included 
stating that the procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's 
health.
  This is simply smoke and mirrors. The bill is unconstitutional for 
the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down similar laws. Women are 
entitled to the right to the safest abortion procedure available. To 
ban one particular procedure is to deny women--in consultation with 
their doctor--that right.
  Just as its authors intended, this bill would apply well before 
viability, banning a safe method of abortion that is often used in the 
second trimester.
  In addition, it fails to include language providing an exception to 
protect the health of the mother.
  I am distressed that more than 30 years after the Supreme Court's 
historic Roe decision, we are considering legislative measures that 
could revert us back to the time of dangerous back alley abortions.
  Before voting, I hope that my colleagues will remember the struggles 
women faced before Roe.
  Let us not forget the women who were injured or who died from unsafe 
procedures. This bill could well return us to that era again.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold a woman's constitutional right to 
choose by voting against final passage of this conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time having expired, 
without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281, 
nays 142, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               YEAS--281

     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
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     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)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     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
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--142

     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
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff

[[Page H9155]]


     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Dreier
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Issa
     Kirk
     Pickering
     Sabo
     Walsh

                              {time}  1254

  Mr. BALLANCE and Mr. GONZALEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 530 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________