[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 139 (Friday, October 3, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1975-E1976]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CORRINE BROWN

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2003

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support a woman's right 
to make choices on her own behalf. Abortion should be a private 
decision made by the woman, with the aid of her family and her doctor. 
The government should stay out of private medical decisions.
  Many, including myself, oppose the ban on partial-birth abortion 
because it may restrict the choices of a woman and her doctors in the 
second trimester. It is normally during this time that amniocentesis 
tests are given and therefore the time when fatal birth defects are 
usually found. We need to leave choice in the hands of the woman, 
especially when we are dealing with issues like fetal birth defects.
  We all know that ``Partial-birth'' is a political term, not a medical 
term. This name is designed to throw fuel on the already heated 
abortion debate through graphic rhetoric and misinformation.
  In describing what is banned, this bill does not reference a 
recognized, established medical procedure. In fact, the bill's language 
is deliberately vague--banning safe and common procedures. For example, 
this bill does not mention fetal viability, so it has the potential to 
restrict abortions throughout pregnancy. The Supreme Court has already 
ruled that we cannot do that. 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. Congress simply should not be legislating 
on this issue. This is one issue that Congress should leave to the 
states.
  When President Bush signs this measure, he will become the first 
President since Roe v. Wade to recriminalize safe abortion procedures. 
Congressional leaders are moving toward the goal of ending legal 
abortion. This

[[Page E1976]]

legislation is just one piece of the overall strategy. With anti-choice 
leaders now controlling both the House and Senate, banning abortion is 
once again becoming a top legislative priority.
  Why when there are so many other pressing issues in this Nation, 
would Congressional leaders choose to introduce legislation that has 
already been held unconstitutional? In 2000, the Supreme Court found 
Nebraska's so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion ban unconstitutional. 
The Court found that the law was an unconstitutional burden on a 
woman's right to choose. The Nebraska law banned safe abortion 
procedures and lacked the constitutionally required exception to 
protect a woman's health. These same issues are present in the bill now 
before Congress.
  I urge Congress to reject this ban on partial-birth abortion. I 
support a woman's right to make choices on her own behalf. The 
government should stay out of important health decisions, and leave 
those important health decisions to the woman, her family and her 
doctor.

                          ____________________