[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 97 (Friday, July 21, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8097-S8099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am glad the majority leader has called 
up and allowed us to consider the Child Custody Protection Act today. I 
was involved, in 1998, when then-Senator Spence Abraham, later 
Secretary of Energy Spence Abraham, offered this bill. We had a press 
conference and made a number of efforts to pass it and always had a 
good deal of support but, frankly, to my frustration and surprise, it 
never became law. It has, in every respect, strong support among the 
American people and in the Congress.
  I am pleased that Senator John Ensign of Nevada has taken up this 
piece of legislation. He has directed his considerable talents to 
pressing it forward. We now have it on the floor. We will soon have a 
vote on it. I believe it should pass. I expect it to pass. I think 
those who would object to it have a high burden to show what is 
unreasonable about the legislation that is before us today.
  The Child Custody Protection Act deals with an important subject. It 
deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines 
for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or 
even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the 
State in which they live. Forty-five States have enacted some sort of 
parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting 
a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's 
rules. It is, in fact, effectively subverting and defeating valid, 
constitutionally approved rights parents have with regard to being 
involved in the health care of their children, emotionally and 
physically. It is a very important issue, and I think it is one we need 
to continue to discuss.
  This bill does not in any way deal substantively with abortion or the 
right to abortion. It does not really expand additional restrictions on 
abortion. What it does, though, is to stop an abominable practice by 
which someone--usually an adult, often an adult male who has gotten a 
young girl pregnant without wanting the parents to know about it--takes 
them across a State line to some foreign jurisdiction to seek an 
abortion without the parents' involvement, an abortion that could not 
be performed in their home State without the approval of the parent.
  In fact, the abortion clinics in those States know that they must 
have a parent's consent. They seek that consent. If they don't have it, 
they don't perform the abortion--at least most of them don't. That is 
what the law is and that is what the situation is. But that is being 
subverted by moving them across the State line.
  I submit this is a commonsense proposal. It is consistent with 
Federal prohibitions on interstate transportation, in violation of law, 
and it is something we should act on now. It is past due, in fact.
  I submit the American people care about this issue. It is something 
that is important. And well they should because they love their 
daughters. They care about them. They will be involved with them 
medically, physically, and emotionally the rest of their lives. It 
won't be some abortion clinic in some distant State that will be 
involved with their emotional problems, their psychological problems, 
their physical problems, which arise from having had an abortion. The 
parents are the ones who care about their child and have the 
responsibility to raise her.
  As we all know, a child cannot be given an aspirin in a school 
without parental consent. I have heard recently that you can't even 
give them sunscreen, in some schools, without parental consent. So we 
have this kind of legal procedure for a child's medical protection, but 
we have a circumstance in which a valid parental consent for a very 
serious procedure such as an abortion can be conducted without parental 
consent if you go across State lines and avoid the existing State law 
in the home State.
  The Supreme Court, I hasten to add, has considered parental consent 
laws. They have considered a number of those cases. Parental consent 
laws have been enacted in many big States such as Pennsylvania and 
Texas. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court of the United 
States upheld consent laws and said they are valid restrictions on 
abortion. This is not too much of a restriction or an undue burden.
  They also say that if somehow the parent is a problem--if there is a 
question of incest or child abuse or dysfunctional parents--there must 
be a judicial procedure which allows a judge to bypass the parental 
consent requirement of that State. So all the State laws in existence 
that require parents to be notified have a judicial bypass option. If a 
child does not believe they could tell their parents for whatever 
reason, they can go to a court and seek court approval without telling 
that parent, if there is a real basis for it.
  In fact, this legislation provides in unusual circumstances that 
judicial bypass would take place. It is responsible in that regard.
  The ability of parents to be involved in the health of their children 
is a fundamental parental right. It is being undermined today--and we 
ought to strengthen that right and that responsibility.
  In fact, one of the great threats to our Nation is legal undermining 
of parental rights and parental abdication of responsibility for their 
children and how they develop. We need to strengthen families, we need 
to strengthen the responsibility of parents, and we need to protect 
children. We need better involvement of parents with their children.
  Some say this is painful, if we required young people to tell their 
parents that they are pregnant. But I submit to you that out of that 
pain can come healing, can come good decisions, can come a change in 
behavior, a recognition that a child is in trouble and has problems, a 
recognition by parents, perhaps, that they need to be more involved and 
more engaged in their children's activities.
  How is that bad? How is it bad that a child would be required to 
engage with their parents once they get in this kind of serious 
trouble? We are talking about minor children, minor girls, often taken 
advantage of by much older men.
  I think it is the right thing to do. But regardless of that, 
regardless of how you feel about parental consent, it is State policy 
by State laws that have been passed in States throughout this Nation 
that parents should be informed, and in some cases have consent. These 
constitutional State laws are being undermined in a real way. I will 
talk about that in a minute and show you some points on it. But it is a 
very real problem. It is not imaginary.
  Let's look at some of the advertisements, fliers, and brochures that 
are

[[Page S8098]]

being passed out around the country to promote interstate 
transportation of minor children to promote abortion.
  Here is one. Metropolitan Medical Associates is in New Jersey which 
does not have a parental consent law, but many States such as 
Pennsylvania and others nearby do. Here is the flier:

       We accept all insurance and credit cards.

  It goes on to say:

       All calls and appointments are confidential. Parental 
     consent is not required.

  They passed this out in the region to people in surrounding States 
which do have to have parental consent. The word gets out that they can 
come and avoid that requirement.
  I think that is unhealthy. I think that is an attempt to undermine 
the laws of the States of this country.
  Here is another one, South Jersey Women's Center. It mentions all of 
their promotions, their abortion procedures. I will highlight this 
phrase: ``No 24-hour wait. . . .''
  In some States, it is required that you wait 24 hours after being 
informed about the abortion procedures before you go forward. ``No 24-
hour wait or parental consent required.''
  That is in New Jersey.
  Again, there is promotion in the other States to come into that State 
to obtain an abortion that would otherwise be illegal in the minor's 
home State.
  Here is an advertisement in, I believe, a Pennsylvania phone book. 
Pennsylvania has a parental consent law. This one is from a clipping in 
Buffalo, NY. It is Planned Parenthood Women's Health Center. But they 
run an ad in the Pennsylvania phone book for a Buffalo, NY, abortion 
clinic. It says: ``No parental consent or waiting period.''
  We have many of those. There are lots of those. I just show these ads 
to show that we are not talking about a rare or insignificant event. 
There is a studied policy to promote abortion in distant States where 
parental consent is not required to undermine existing law of the State 
where the child may have become pregnant.
  The attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Kathryn 
Kolbert, stated:

       There are thousands of minors who cross State lines for an 
     abortion every year and who need assistance from adults to do 
     that.

  We see several examples of abortion clinics which openly place 
advertisements in phone books and otherwise.
  I chair the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee of 
the Judiciary Committee, and I chaired a hearing in June a couple of 
years ago where we heard a number of stories that deal with this issue. 
One particularly moving story involved a young woman named Crystal Lane 
who exhibited a maturity beyond her years when she testified before the 
committee. When Crystal was just 13 years old, she was secretly 
transported across the State line by adults seeking to hide the fact of 
her pregnancy from her mother. Crystal was taken across State lines 
from Pennsylvania, a State which had a consent statute, to New York, a 
State which did not. Crystal testified that she suffered serious 
complications from this ``legal'' abortion that was botched and which 
resulted in ``the most terrifying time'' in her life.
  Crystal's mother, Mrs. Joyce Farley, testified that her daughter was 
taken out of State for an abortion by one Rosa Marie Hartford.
  Is this just a friend, Mrs. Hartford? Is this just a neighbor trying 
to take care of her? That is not really the pattern. Mrs. Hartford was 
actually the mother of a 19-year-old young man whose statutory rape of 
the then-12-year-old girl caused the pregnancy. In other words, the 
woman was trying to cover up the criminal activity of her son. The son 
later pleaded guilty to statutory rape.
  Thus, the clinics are openly encouraging evasion of State laws. The 
Child Custody Protection Act would shut those practices down.
  The question of parental notification and consent is an important 
one. The American people care about it.
  I would like to show a chart which shows the depth of the feeling of 
the American people on this issue, which has remained strong for a 
decade or more. Just last year, in a Fox NEWS Dynamics Opinion Poll, 
the question was:

       Do you think a female under age 18 should be required by 
     State law to notify at least one parent or guardian before 
     having an abortion?

  Seventy-eight percent said yes. Only 17 percent said no.
  How about this one, a Quinnipiac University poll of just last year:

       Do you favor or oppose requiring parental notification 
     before a minor could get an abortion?

  Seventy-five percent say yes; eighteen percent say no.
  How about this one, a CNN-USA Today poll conducted by Gallop:

       Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals? How 
     about a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent 
     for any abortion?

  You see how they changed that language a little bit; you would affect 
the numbers a little bit. It did--73 to 24. But still three-fourths of 
the people say a parent should know and consent before their minor 
daughter can get an abortion.
  How about this one. This is the Wirthlin Worldwide poll from several 
years ago:

       Do you favor or oppose requiring one parent of a girl who 
     is under the age of 18 years of age to be notified before an 
     abortion is performed on the girl?

  Eighty-three percent to fifteen.
  Here is another one, the Los Angeles Times:

       Should girls under the age of 18 be required to get the 
     consent of at least one parent before having an abortion?

  Eighty-two to twelve.
  Here is CBS News-New York Times:

       Would you favor or oppose requiring parental consent before 
     a girl under the age of 18 could have an abortion?

  Seventy-eight to seventeen percent. That one was 1998, 8 years ago.
  The numbers have been strong. They haven't gone down. They remain so. 
Why? Because it is good policy.
  For Heaven's sake, shouldn't a parent know if their child is having 
this kind of medical procedure? I think so. Some may think that a 13-
year-old should just be allowed to be taken away by some 29-year-old, 
some 40-year-old man to have an abortion to cover up his statutory 
rape. They may think that is good policy. I don't.
  But I would just say this: This law that we are considering today, 
the Child Custody Protection Act, really does not deal with that. It 
simply says that if a State of this United States passes a law, and 
someone takes a child across State lines to avoid that law, they would 
be implicated in a Federal violation. The Federal Government would 
simply be affirming and supporting the States that choose to have a 
parental consent law. It does not make any new law. It does not set any 
parental consent standard. It does not put any new constraints on 
abortion. It simply says that if you try to avoid the State law, the 
Federal Government will be of assistance.
  I think the statute is drafted in a good way. I was a Federal 
prosecutor for 15 years and very familiar with many of the questions 
that come up with regard to prosecuting Federal cases. We have had some 
recent federalism decisions by the Supreme Court. They basically raise 
concerns that we in Congress have become too careless in how we draft 
legislation by attempting to make criminal acts solely within a State 
that have no interstate connection.
  When I was a young prosecutor, some of the first cases I got to 
prosecute were automobile theft cases. But it is not automobile theft 
in Federal court, it is interstate transportation of a stolen motor 
vehicle. That is the crime--interstate transportation of that vehicle. 
If you just stole a car in Alabama, and you caught the person in 
Alabama, they never crossed a State line, it is not a Federal crime. It 
can only be prosecuted in Alabama.
  The Supreme Court raised some concerns about that.
  Theft from an interstate shipment is also a Federal crime. It is a 
Federal crime for people to steal from a railroad going through the 
community, if it is an interstate shipment. But if you steal from a 
farmer, and you don't get out of State with the produce, it is not a 
Federal crime. It is theft from interstate transportation of stolen 
property, ITSP. And that is a Federal offense.

  So that is how this statute is written. This statute does not say we 
are going to micromanage what goes on within a State. What we are 
saying is, if someone travels in interstate commerce--because the 
Constitution of the

[[Page S8099]]

United States provides that this Congress, this Federal Government, has 
the authority to regulate interstate commerce--for the purpose of 
avoiding a State law to help a minor child get an abortion without the 
knowledge of their loving parents, who are raising the child and will 
have to raise them in the future, they are guilty a Federal offense.
  I think that is perfectly sound constitutionally and something we 
should do. It is past time we do it. I would urge my colleagues to 
consider this. If there is one circumstance in which we should be most 
concerned about abortion, it is that of the young lady I described who 
testified at our hearing. Crystal Lane was impregnated and having sex 
with an older man when she was 12 years of age, and had an abortion at 
13 years of age, and her parent did not know about it. How did it 
happen? The young man's mother and young man got together and secreted 
her across State lines to have an abortion, so he would not be found 
out, so he would not be prosecuted for statutory rape. This was not 
done out of any interest in the child's welfare.
  That is a very real problem that should not continue. We have the 
ability to do something about it. I urge my colleagues to study this 
act and to make sure we stop those who would usurp State law, usurp 
parental rights, and damage children without the knowledge of their 
parents.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wyden are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I support S. 403, the Child Custody 
Protection Act. This bill is a commonsense measure that says simply 
that families, parents, and children are important in America and that 
we will respect them and protect them. The bill also demonstrates the 
importance of respecting our citizens who have spoken in State after 
State by the adoption of parental notification and parental consent 
requirements before a minor child can be subjected to invasive medical 
procedures with both physical and emotional consequences.
  The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a Federal misdemeanor 
to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion, in order 
to circumvent a home State law requiring notification of one or both 
parents prior to an abortion.
  This bill does not permit the prosecution of the child or his 
parents, but it does permit the prosecution of outside third parties 
who would interfere with the parent-child relationship in order to 
further a political or ideological agenda.
  In addition to criminal penalties, the bill allows any parent who 
suffers harm from a violation of this act may seek and obtain an 
appropriate civil remedy.
  At a time when children in public schools cannot obtain so much as an 
aspirin from a school nurse without parental consent, America has 
overwhelmingly insisted that before permitting minors to undergo a 
major medical procedure, such as an abortion, their parents should 
consent or at the very least, be notified. Thirty-four States have 
enacted parental consent or notification laws. Parental notification is 
supported by 83 percent of the American people.
  Yet, too often, outside third parties have intentionally sought to 
circumvent these profamily State laws and invade the parent-child 
relationship by transporting children across State lines for the 
purpose of having an abortion.
  This bill will serve as a real deterrent to such efforts. It 
reaffirms the parent-child relationship which is so important to the 
overwhelming majority of Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of this bill.
  I yield back.

                          ____________________