[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 21, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2236-H2240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CASE FOR LIFE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the discharge of an idea that
began for me in September of 2003; and now today it has its fourth
manifestation, a series of remarks on the floor of this Congress that I
simply call ``The Case for Life.''
My inspiration for today's discussion, which is entitled ``The Case
for Life: Abortion and the Problem of Pain,'' was inspired not by a
contemporary in this Congress, though I just came from a meeting with
really the intellectual and moral father of the pro-life movement in
this Congress, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, who simply referred to my humble
efforts on the floor and those of colleagues who will join me as, in
his words, ``a great idea.'' But it was not from the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that I drew my inspiration for these series, but
rather from another distinguished gentleman who served in this body
from the years 1827 to his death on the House floor in the year 1848.
That was the late Congressman and the former President, John Quincy
Adams, who history recorded after he served as President of the United
States for a term in the early 1820s, he actually felt compelled to
return to Washington, D.C. from his home State of Massachusetts as a
member of the House of Representatives, truly an extraordinary exercise
in public service.
One can scarcely imagine a former President in the modern era
becoming a Member of Congress after he served in the Oval Office. But
John Quincy Adams was not an ordinary man. His father before him, John
Adams, was our second President. John Quincy Adams was considered one
of the great moral and intellectual minds of the 19th century and is
considered so to this day. But he came to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker,
not simply, as some get wrongly accused, to occupy a chair. He came
here on a mission, a mission encapsulated in a book I am reading now
entitled ``Arguing About Slavery.'' Because when John Quincy Adams came
to the Congress of the United States he did so as a Northerner, a
former President himself, the son of one of the founders of this
country, and a man who believed that the scourge of slavery was a
blight on this Nation and threatened its greatness and threatened its
destiny.
So as history records, Congressman John Quincy Adams came often not
to this floor, but to the floor of the Congress just down the hallway,
every few weeks for the nearly 20 years he served in this body to speak
about one issue, and that was the issue of the abolition of slavery.
Now, one would argue that having died in 1848, John Quincy Adams
could scarcely point to any accomplishment in his life ending slavery;
but there, Mr. Speaker, you would be wrong. Because it would be none
other than a lanky, gangly freshman member of Congress that arrived on
Capitol Hill the year that John Quincy Adams would die who would be
sitting on the back row in what is now Statuary Hall in the House of
Representatives and would listen to the great man speak, make his
powerful moral orations against slavery. And that young Congressman,
known to his friends as Abe Lincoln, would be deeply moved.
{time} 1430
History would record that young Congressman would go back to Illinois
and run for the United States Senate and eventually become our
President and eventually sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I am
confident that once we reach the other side of heaven, as opposed to
this side of heaven, we will know to a certainty that that Abe Lincoln
was inspired by the words and the example of that humble former
President and Congressman.
After I learned that story, I thought of my own time. I thought of
the short period of time that I would have here to serve, and I thought
about my passion about the sanctity of human life,
[[Page H2237]]
and I thought about the enormity of this issue and the fact that apart
from a few important legislative advances, despite the fact that this
Chamber could be considered the heart of the most powerful Nation on
Earth, that actually the subject of abortion comes up here very
infrequently, even though the statistics are startling about the impact
that abortion has and has had on our society over the last 30 years.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker. Each year more than 1 million U.S.
teenagers become pregnant, and the teen pregnancy rate in the last 30
years has become truly alarming. With regard to those who elect to end
that pregnancy out of wedlock in abortion, 80 percent are single, 60
percent are white, 35 percent are black. Eighty-two percent of women
having abortions are among that single or separated category, but the
most startling statistic to me, and I think the reason why, Mr.
Speaker, it begs that we grapple with this issue on this floor from
time to time, in the same way that John Quincy Adams, however
inconveniently, grappled publicly on the floor of the Congress about
slavery, is that according to Planned Parenthood's National Center for
Health Statistics, nearly half of American women, 43 percent of
American women, will have an abortion sometime during their life.
Let me say again. This procedure, validated in the case of Roe v.
Wade in 1973, has now given rise to a procedure that literally impacts
the lives not only of the unborn, but of nearly half of childbearing
women in the United States of America. So it is in that spirit that
back in September I launched this series on the case for life and today
come to the floor on the subject of abortion and the problem of pain.
I mentioned earlier that there have been some recent and important
legislative achievements. This Republican majority in Congress has
advanced not one, but two historic pieces of legislation that advance
the principles of the sanctity of human life. To a lesser degree is the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I helped to draft that bill as a member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and while it is not a prolife piece
of legislation, it does, on the Federal level, certify what two-thirds
of the States of this Nation have certified long ago is that when there
is violence against a pregnant mother that results in the loss of the
unborn child's life, that there are two victims, and while I would say
that it is not a prolife piece of legislation, the principle about the
sanctity of unborn human life is nonetheless there, and it is
important.
I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart),
who almost single-handedly muscled this legislation to the floor of the
Congress and saw to its passage and signature earlier this year.
Obviously, the most significant piece of legislation and, in fact,
the very first restriction on the abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade
also passed in this Congress and is now the subject of not one, but
three separate pieces of litigation in the Federal courts, and it is in
that context that abortion and the problem of pain, I think,
justifiably comes before us today.
Congress, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, Mr. Speaker, actually
managed earlier this year in overwhelming numbers to pass the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act. For those not aware of this procedure, partial
birth abortion essentially involves, as hard as it is to say, the
breach delivery of a child post-20 weeks. Virtually in every case of a
partial birth abortion, the child could be delivered whole and could
survive. It is certainly at the stage of viability.
But in the partial birth abortion, the child is delivered partially,
and then a suction tube is, I will say it gently, inserted in the back
of the skull. The contents of the skull are removed, and the remains of
the child are taken from the mother's womb. It is a horrific procedure.
It was one of the joys of my life on November 5, 2003, to sit on
about the third row as the President of the United States over near the
White House in the Reagan Building signed that ban of that horrific
procedure. As the President said, Our Nation owes its children a
different and better welcome. He went on to say, The bill I am about to
sign protecting the innocent, new life from this practice reflects the
passion and humanity of America. And so it did. It affirmed our basic
standard of humanity which can be summarized in the duty that the
strong have to protect the weak.
The American people obviously overwhelmingly support this
legislation. One survey after another has shown enormous support. A
recent Gallup poll showed 68 percent of Americans believe that partial
birth abortion should be illegal. The same poll showed that even 50
percent of those who considered themselves to be prochoice on abortion
supported the ban of this horrific procedure, and here is a compelling
number for my colleagues. Fifty-seven percent of obstetricians and
gynecologists want partial birth abortion banned as well, according to
a survey in Medical Economics Magazine.
It seems, as we like to say back in Indiana, Mr. Speaker, to be a no-
brainer procedure like this has no place in a civilized society, and
Congress, in bipartisan fashion, agreed. Members from across the
political spectrum after literally 8 years of wrangling on Capitol
Hill, 8 years of expert testimony, 8 years of public debate, finally
came to broad agreement. Members across the aisle, as I mentioned, many
colleagues in the Democrat minority in the House and the Senate,
strongly supported this legislation. Senators, from conservative
Republican Rick Santorum to Senator Tom Daschle, approved this measure
in a 64-to-34 vote, and House Members in this Chamber, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and my friend the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), joined conservatives like me
in approving the ban 281 to 142.
Congress made specific findings in this legislation as well, that
partial birth abortion was essentially an inhumane procedure that is,
and this was a finding of the Congress that is important in this
moment, Mr. Speaker, because it is being litigated in Federal courts
around the country at this very moment, that the Congress found that
one expert after another, and even in agreement with the American
Medical Association that supports abortion rights in America, found
that this procedure is never medically necessary. Let me say again.
That after nearly 8 years of debate, after examination of experts,
including the concerted opinion of the American Medical Association, it
was concluded that this procedure, known as partial birth abortion by
the AMA, as well as, of course, by the overwhelming majorities of this
Congress, was found to never be medically necessary, and that is a
critical, critical conclusion by this Congress.
Partial birth abortion, it was concluded almost unilaterally or
uniformly by medical and legal and ethical experts to be inconsistent
with the obligations of the law. So we find ourselves nevertheless in
litigation in America, and as a former trial attorney, I can tell my
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I would never stand between any American and
the courthouse door. We all have the right to seek redress in the
courts, and some are doing just that.
In fact, this law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into
law last November is being challenged not in one, but in three separate
cases in Federal courts around the country: in New York City before
Judge Richard C. Casey; in Lincoln, Nebraska, before Judge Richard
Kopf; and in San Francisco, California, before the honorable Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton.
In two out of three of those cases, though, interestingly, Mr.
Speaker, the judges on the bench have ruled that an issue that we did
consider in this Congress, but an issue that has not gotten a great
deal of public discussion, was relevant to the deliberations on the
constitutionality of the ban, and that is, as I have said in the title
of this discussion today, the problem of pain. It is the problem of
pain that is literally being considered in two out of three of the
Federal cases, and it may ultimately cause some pain in the hearts of
Americans who may be looking in on our deliberations or may be reading
accounts of this, but it seems to me, as we try and come to terms with
the cost of abortion in America, we do well to listen to the experts
about this issue of pain, and I want to speak gently and respectfully
about it today.
The truth is, in the New York City case, the National Abortion
Federation never wanted Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand to testify in the Partial
Birth Abortion
[[Page H2238]]
Ban Act trials, but he did, and no wonder. This Oxford- and Harvard-
trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony about the
subject of fetal pain, and it is truly made more astonishing when one
considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypic Bible-thumping
prolifer.
In fact, interestingly, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Anand is not prolife at all.
He is, in fact, a strong advocate of the right to an abortion. A native
of India, he just does not meet the stereotype, not just the head wrap,
the neat beard, the Rollie Fingers-style mustache, but he views
abortion as an unalienable right for women in America. He gave his
testimony in the New York court, even more credibility as one of the
leading experts on fetal pain in America, if not the world.
Dr. Anand took the stand in the morning recently and testified for
hours, excerpts of which I will read into the Record today. He
testified for hours on a simple principle that unborn children can,
according to his research, actually feel pain more vividly than
recently born children or adults. It is an astonishing and truly
chilling assertion that this expert came to.
Let me go back, as my old trial lawyer days taught me to do, and let
me establish the credibility of the witness, if I can. Dr. Kanwaljeet
S. Anand is a pediatrician specializing in the care of critically ill
newborns and children. For more than 20 years, according to trial
testimony, he has conducted intensive research on the study and the
development of pain and stress in human newborns and fetuses.
I said before once again, and I repeat it for the sake of its
significance and its addition to the credibility of his testimony, that
Dr. Anand personally believes that a woman has an unalienable right to
an abortion, which makes him solidly and unqualifiedly prochoice.
He received his medical degree from Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical
College in Indore, India. After postdoctoral training in pediatrics, he
was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to study at the University of Oxford.
He received a Ph.D. from the Faculty of Medicine for research he
performed on surgical pain and stress in premature and full-term
newborns.
Following additional postdoctoral training at Oxford, Dr. Anand
completed a fellowship in pediatric critical care at Massachusetts
General Hospital.
He has numerous academic appointments, University of Oxford, Harvard
Medical School, Emory University School of Medicine. He has authored or
coauthored more than 200 articles and is currently professor of
pediatrics at Arkansas University for Medical Science. Not a
lightweight, and, virtually as we used to say in the law business, an
unimpeachable witness on the subject of fetal stress and fetal pain.
{time} 1445
Now, before I go into precisely what Dr. Anand had to say, it is
important to point out that the damaging nature of this information
coming in not only to the courtroom in New York, and not only has been
ruled in order in Nebraska, Mr. Speaker, but also into the public
domain was certainly not lost on the abortion rights activists who
brought the challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in both of
those cases.
Literally, attorneys for the National Abortion Federation used
virtually every legal tactic at their disposal to prevent Dr. Anand's
testimony from being permitted in the court. NAF attorneys attempted
time and time again to block Dr. Anand's testimony. And then once he
was allowed on the stand, the plaintiffs' attorneys cross-examined him
redundantly, in a style that actually drew the judge's rebuke. The
judge actually asked one of the National Abortion Federation lawyers,
he was being so pedantic and repetitive, and in some ways abusive of
Dr. Anand on the stand, Judge Casey asked: ``Is this a new school of
cross-examination, where you make a statement and finish every
statement with, is that correct?'' Later, the judge actually drilled a
plaintiff's lawyer for attempting to make one of their witnesses
testify about events before they were hired.
It just was extraordinary the efforts to which the opponents of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act went to prevent Dr. Anand's testimony
from being allowed in. And for all the world, I do not think, Mr.
Speaker, it was so much about what was happening in that courtroom as
it was what was happening out here in the debate, the debate for
winning the hearts and minds of 270, 280 million Americans who wrestle
with this issue and are deeply divided. And not only are we divided
just as a country, but most of even my very best friends and family
members, who profess to be pro-choice, do so with a great deal of
ambiguity about it, seeing abortion as a necessary evil in society, but
an evil nonetheless.
I really believe, as I denominated this ``case for life''
installment, I believe that pain is a problem for the advocates of
abortion in America, not just those who would oppose partial-birth
abortion. Abortion and the problem of pain can be summarized in this
idea, and forgive me if I have too high an opinion of people and
particularly the American people, but I cannot help but feel that if
most Americans became persuaded about the truth of what Dr. Anand has
said, about the capacity of unborn children to experience pain, that we
would, as a Nation, rethink this business of abortion.
And so I thought it all together fitting that we talk about the
problem of pain in the little bit of time I have left. And I may be
joined, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who was
actually in Nebraska, in the courtroom, where much of this testimony
took place and was facilitated just in the last 2 weeks.
Here is what Dr. Anand had to say, and I want to read this into the
Record, if I can, Mr. Speaker, although I will submit the entire
testimony for the Record.
When he was brought to the stand in New York City in the partial-
birth abortion ban challenge case, Dr. Anand was asked a series of
questions beginning with this: ``Are there differences between fetuses
and infants born at full term?'' The answer: ``There are certainly huge
differences between a fetus at different stages of maturity and a full-
term infant, yes.''
Next question: ``What effect, if any, does that have on your opinion
in this case about a fetus's ability to feel pain?'' This was the
response of this Rhodes Scholar, Harvard-trained Ph.D. who supports the
right to an abortion. Dr. Anand responded: ``What we have noted from
these multiple lines of evidence is that the pain system has a very low
threshold, meaning that the fetus has a much greater sensitivity to
pain during the early development of the pain system, and later on that
threshold rises or the sensitivity decreases to pain. This is seen
throughout development. So in a premature fetus, those 23, 24 weeks of
gestation, they have a much lower threshold of pain compared to a full-
term infant. A full-term infant has a lower threshold of pain as
compared to, say, a 1- or 2-year-old child. And during childhood as
well there is a progressive increase in the threshold of pain. So,''
Dr. Anand testified, ``my opinion is that between 20 and 30 weeks of
gestation there is the greatest sensitivity to pain.''
The attorney went on to ask the question: ``Doctor, can you explain
the scientific reasons why that is so?'' Dr. Anand responded: ``There
are many reasons to explain this increased sensitivity to pain.
Firstly, there is the early development of the receptors and the
density of these receptors is much greater in the fetal skin as
compared to an older child or adult. These receptors have connections
to the spinal cord,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. ``So it is that
early period,'' he concluded, ``there is the greatest sensitivity to
pain.''
Then it gets a bit more chilling, and this is where I would ask the
forbearance of the Chair and any who are looking in; so that if there
are little ears nearby, I, as the father of three small children, have
no desire to offend, but this is offensive. Because here we will hear
where Dr. Anand actually used the word ``excruciating'' to describe the
experience of pain of an unborn child in a partial-birth abortion.
Question: ``Do you have any opinion as to whether the partial-birth
abortion procedure will cause pain to a fetus?'' Answer: ``Yes, it
would, if the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation.''
And I would add parenthetically here, not as part of the testimony,
that virtually all partial-birth abortions
[[Page H2239]]
take place after 20 weeks, according to medical statistics.
Back to the testimony. Question: ``And could you describe, in your
opinion, Doctor, what kind of pain you would anticipate the fetus would
feel?'' Dr. Anand responded as follows: ``Given the increased
sensitivity to pain at that period of gestation, the parts of the
procedure associated with grasping the lower extremity of the fetus, of
manipulating or rotating the fetus within the confines of the uterus,
of delivering the fetus through an incompletely dilated cervix as well
as the surgical incision made at the back of the head, the puncturing
of the intracranial cavity through the occipital bone and through the
membranes that cover the brain, all of those parts of the procedure
would be associated with prolonged and excruciating pain to the
fetus.'' So said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a Rhodes Scholar and one of the
leading experts on fetal pain in the Western World.
As you heard, Mr. Speaker, going literally step by step through each
element, the doctor described of the procedure of a partial-birth
abortion, and I cited here his reference to the grasping of lower
extremities, the turning of the fetus in the uterus, the delivery of
the fetus through an insufficiently dilated cervix, Dr. Anand concludes
that these would all result in, and these are his words now,
``prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus.''
There is more here; and as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will
submit this testimony at this point in the Record, in its entirety, for
any who might examine our work at some point in the future, because it
is truly extraordinary to consider.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful now to yield to a colleague and a friend
who, while a freshman from the great State of Iowa, has arrived here
with a vengeance and with convictions and with passion. And as I
presented the issues that are being litigated at this very hour in New
York and in Nebraska and in San Francisco, I was delighted to note that
over the April recess, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King), was not content to stay in Iowa while these weighty matters were
being debated.
As was reported to me, the gentleman from Iowa drove 470 miles one
way to sit in the courtroom in Nebraska in the company of the Honorable
Judge Richard G. Kopf, and reassert the principle of Congress' ability
to make findings of fact and the deliberation that Congress used in
concluding, as I asserted earlier, Mr. Speaker, that partial-birth
abortion is never medically necessary. And, as I am sure the gentleman
from Iowa will elaborate, that was a broad conclusion by this body.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would be anxious to hear my colleague's
reflections on the issue of fetal pain and how that may or may not play
into this debate, both in and out of the courtroom.
My purpose today in this ``case for life'' entitled ``Abortion and
the Problem of Pain,'' is simply to do our part on this blue and gold
carpet to bring these issues more into the public domain, not just to
our colleagues here on the floor, but also to those that might be
looking in, Mr. Speaker, to be aware that this business of banning
partial-birth abortions, so overwhelmingly supported by the American
people, is an unfinished work. The work goes on.
Mr. Speaker, again I yield to my colleague, the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), for yielding to me to address my colleagues
and America on this issue.
For many years now, this Congress, in response to the people of the
United States of America, have fought diligently to end the most
ghastly and ghoulish and gruesome procedure known to modern man. And as
we have done so, this Congress has held hearings in the 104th, 105th,
106th, and 108th Congresses. That is over 8 to 9 years if gathering
information and data and analysis of the concept of what we call and
have defined in this Congress as partial-birth abortion.
Now, for myself, as I thumb through the phone book in the Washington,
D.C. yellow pages, I can find in there ads for abortions up to at least
22 weeks, and I believe there are one or two that advertise up to 24
weeks. And if the advertisement goes to that, then you can be confident
that those partial-birth abortions are taking place beyond the 24
weeks. And, in fact, in this country, there is a Supreme Court decision
that allows for such a thing up until the very last minute before
birth.
The circumstances around this law that we have then in this country
come to Congress finally passing a ban on partial-birth abortion that
was signed by our President. And that was something that was difficult,
in fact impossible to obtain under the previous administration. We have
it today.
I sit on the House Committee on the Judiciary, and we held hearings
and we gathered facts, did fact-finding, due diligence, and gathered
data that reaches out all across this country into all of the experts,
the best experts that we can find, to bring them forward to testify
before congressional hearings. There were people to testify on each
side of the argument, both pro and con on this procedure that we know
all across this Nation as partial-birth abortion.
And when that happens, these expert witnesses testify, they are
cross-examined by nearly every member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. At the end of that period of time, then we debate the
relative merits of the issue. As that debate flows through, we bring
the bill for a vote, and generally through subcommittee, full
committee, and then out to the floor. The same procedure takes place
over in the other body.
That gathers all of the best expertise that can be gathered, it draws
it all out of the United States of America, and then we have the
administrative branch that also has their staff and their expertise,
and they do their fact-finding.
So when the House of Representatives votes overwhelmingly and the
other body votes overwhelmingly to ban that ghastly, ghoulish, and
gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion, and when Congress comes
with findings that declare that a partial-birth abortion is never
medically necessary to preserve the health of the woman, there is no
system of fact-finding or data-gathering that exists in this country
today that can begin to match the due diligence of the United States
Congress.
{time} 1500
So, when word came to me late Good Friday that a judge in Lincoln,
Nebraska, had made remarks during the last witness' cross-examination
in the case that is one of the three jurisdictions that the gentleman
from Indiana spoke about, that the attorneys in the case had done more
due diligence than Congress had, that echoed into my ears an hour or
two, if not within minutes. When it did, it looked to me that the
preparation was at least there to declare that Congress had not done
due diligence, that the attorneys in the case had, and that would be
reason or justification enough to overturn our congressional ban, our
Federal ban on partial-birth abortion.
So the decision was made late that Friday afternoon, and I was in
Lincoln at 9 on Monday morning. I make one minor correction to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence): It was round-trip miles rather than
one way. It was a little bit to adjust it into my schedule. I walked
into the courtroom at 9, and I am confident most of the actors in the
courtroom knew I was coming, judging by the reaction in the courtroom.
I listened to that case between 9 and almost up to 12, nearly noon,
just stepping out for a couple of message exchanges. At noon I went
down there outside the Federal building in Lincoln, Nebraska, and held
a press conference. I made the statement describing how Congress comes
to their findings, what due diligence Congress uses, and that there is
no substitute for the due diligence of Congress.
For a single judge to substitute his opinion for the collective
wisdom of the United States of America is the height of arrogance. It
also exposes judicial activism. It turns the law on its head. There is
nothing that we could pass in this Congress that would meet that kind
of standard that would allow a single judge to substitute his judgment
for the wisdom of the people of America.
That is what that press conference was about. It echoed across this
Nation
[[Page H2240]]
from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and points in between, and I am
hopeful that it echoes into that courtroom and the courtrooms of San
Francisco and New York where any activist judge in this country
realizes that the legislative power belongs to the United States
Congress. That is defined in the United States Constitution. If we
allow judicial activism to run its course, there is no point in this
body existing. They will have taken away all of the legislative power
of this Congress if we do not draw the line.
I would have said a year ago that the line was blurred between the
judicial and the legislative branch of government. Today I will say it
is obliterated. It has been obliterated in a number of cases not
particularly relevant to the ban on partial-birth abortion.
We have the authority as Congress to rein in the run-away judiciary,
to slap the wrists of judicial activism. In fact, all Federal courts,
with the exception of the Supreme Court, exist because they have been
established from time to time by the Congress. Whatever the Congress
establishes, they can take away.
So it is conceivable that any of these Federal lower courts are not a
requirement of Congress, we could do with them as we wish. We want to
do what is prudent and appropriate, but we also have an obligation to
preserve the separation of powers. I will continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the fetal pain issue as well. I do
not think that is hard for any of us to understand. We have heard
testimony during hearings of this Congress of a baby that was almost to
the last moment of its life reaching its arm out with that fear-of-
falling reflex. It is unrealistic to believe that baby did not feel the
pain at that moment, at that moment when they are trusting into the
hands outside the womb instead of the protection of the womb, to have
those hands take the life and drain the brains from that innocent, most
innocent little child.
If Members have seen the pictures that have been up on the Internet,
particularly on the Drudge Report, during intrauterine surgery, a
little hand reaching up, grabbing ahold of the finger of a doctor.
Imagine a little hand grasping the hand of the surgeon that is there to
protect and save its life, and that little hand and that little body
cannot feel pain? Of course it does. For a doctor to say, I have never
thought of such a thing, it did not occur to me whether there was pain
there, that would not be the case if this were happening with an
animal. There would be a national outrage, and there should be a
national outrage on this.
We have to play this out in the courts in New York, Nebraska and San
Francisco. We are going to see these three inferior courts come with a
decision. Those decisions will find their way to the United States
Supreme Court where the Supreme Court will in the next year or so be
obligated to makes a decision on whether Congress can actually declare
findings and declare fact. We have done so.
There are only two questions before the court, I understand. One of
them is do congressional findings determine that a partial-birth
abortion is never necessary to protect the health of the woman; and the
other question is did we define partial-birth abortion accurately and
precisely enough that one who is providing that procedure, and that is
hard for me to say, understands clearly at what point they would be
breaking the law?
I think we have a precise definition of partial-birth abortion. It is
clear whether it is a head delivery or whether it is a breech delivery.
We define that moment when it becomes a partial-birth abortion, and
Leroy Carhart or any of those practitioners understand that, and they
are simply trying to confuse the American public.
I will stand for life. I stand with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence) and the hundreds of people in this Congress and the millions
across this country that understand that innocent life begins at the
instant of conception.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)
for his statements, and again want to express my gratitude for the
gentleman's tenacity in defending life and the processes of an
institution. Our colleague, literally at a time when many Members of
Congress with their families were stealing away to someplace warm, our
colleague was headed to a courthouse to defend the integrity of an
institution and the processes of this institution which the American
people, many of whom may be looking into our conversation today, have a
right to know that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed 5
November, 2003, by this President was thoughtfully considered and
carefully prepared and based upon findings of fact that are
demonstrable.
I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his leadership and for
his courage on behalf of the unborn and as truly a remarkable
contributor to this institution in a very short period of time.
By way of closing this installment of the case for life, abortion and
the problem of pain, I would reflect on those words from the ancient
text that say whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me,
and that for millions of Christians, me included, those were the words
of God Himself. They express a principle that has been manifested
throughout the 2,000-year history of Western civilization that
societies and their justice and their definition of justice is defined
on the manner in which the strong deal with the weak. That is the
essence of justice.
At its very core, in my judgment, whether it is partial-birth
abortion or abortion in any of its permutations, justice demands that
we reconsider this practice. As the evidence that the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King) defended in Lincoln, Nebraska, overwhelmingly attested
in the case of partial-birth abortion, this is a procedure that is
never medically necessary. In fact, we, from south of Highway 40 in
Indiana, like to use common sense on things. It hardly seems like it
could ever be in the interest of the health of a woman to deliver a
child and to brutalize it in the birth canal, and that would somehow be
safer for the mother than a simple caesarean section that is done
countless times in America and has been done since Caesar, after whom
it was named. It is never medically necessary.
Beyond that, it is my hope and my ambition, and I may even say my
prayer, that the problem of pain becomes more widely known in this
country. Just judging the intensity that abortion rights activists use
to keep Dr. Anand's testimony about fetal pain out of the courtroom in
these proceedings suggests to me that our opponents in this debate
understand the political vulnerability because at our core I believe,
as the President says so often, the American people are a deeply
compassionate and caring people.
That is why I said at the beginning of this discussion today that in
the case for life, the problem of pain is a problem for advocates of
abortion rights. To the extent that these court cases and the attempts
to challenge and pull down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
ultimately result, whatever their outcome, in the American people
having a broader understanding of the reality of what Dr. Anand called
so chillingly that prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus in a
partial-birth abortion, then we may be making progress.
So I conclude this case for life, Mr. Speaker, with gratitude for
your forbearance and those of my colleagues, with renewed appreciation
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who, along with his lovely
bride, are stalwarts on the case for life. I close this case for life
with gratitude.
____________________