[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 25, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8151-S8153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to S. 
403 under conditions of the consent agreement from last week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 403) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of 
     laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion 
     decisions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Child Custody 
Protection Act which will protect the rights of our Nation's parents 
and their children's well-being. Speaking as a father of three young 
children, including a daughter, I understand how difficult the 
challenge of raising children can be. In most schools across the 
country, our children cannot go on a field trip, take part in school 
activities, or participate in sex education without a signed permission 
slip. An underage child cannot even receive mild medication such as 
aspirin unless the school nurse has a signed release form. Some States 
even require parental permission to use indoor tanning beds. Nothing, 
however, prevents this same child from being taken across State lines 
in direct disobedience of State laws for the purpose of undergoing a 
surgical, life-altering abortion.
  The bill before us, the Child Custody Protection Act, makes it a 
Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for 
the purpose of an abortion in order to circumvent a State's parental 
consent or notification law. It specifies that neither the minor 
transported nor her parent may be prosecuted for a violation of this 
act.
  It is important to note that this legislation does not supersede, 
override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws. 
It does not impose any Federal parental notice or consent requirement 
on any State that does not already have a parental involvement law in 
place. This bill merely addresses the interstate transportation of 
minors, sometimes by a predatory older male or his parents, in order to 
circumvent valid existing State laws that require parental notification 
or consent. This bill goes a long way in strengthening the 
effectiveness of State laws designed to protect parents and their young 
daughters from the health and safety risks associated with secret 
abortions.
  An overwhelming number of States have recognized that a young girl's 
parents are the best source of guidance and knowledge when making 
decisions regarding serious surgical procedures such as abortion. 
Forty-five States have adopted some form of parental notification or 
consent, proving the widespread support for protecting the rights of 
parents across America. The people who care the most for a child should 
be involved in these kinds of health care decisions. If there is 
aftercare needed, the parents should be fully informed in order to care 
for their young daughter.
  An overwhelming majority of Americans support parental consent laws. 
In fact, most polls show that consent is favored by almost 80 percent 
of the American people. These numbers do not lie. By the way, these are 
people who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Well over a 
majority of even pro-choice people support parental notification or 
parental consent laws. The American people agree that parents deserve 
the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions. In many 
cases, only a girl's parents know her prior medical and psychological 
history, including allergies to medications and anesthesia.
  The harsh reality is our current law allows for parents to be left 
uninformed about their underage daughter's abortion which can be 
devastating to the physical and mental health of their child. Take the 
case of Marcia Carroll from Pennsylvania. On Christmas Eve 2004, her 
daughter informed her she was pregnant. After listening to her 
daughter's story, Ms. Carroll assured her that they would handle 
this as a family and would support any decisions she decided to make. 
They scheduled appointments with both doctors and counselors and 
discussed all options available. Ms. Carroll purposely allowed her 
daughter to speak alone with the professionals so that her daughter 
felt comfortable to speak her mind. After all the advice and counsel, 
her daughter decided to have the baby and to raise it, a decision which 
the family fully supported.

  Following her decision, despite their knowledge of her family's love 
and support, her boyfriend's family began to harass her and threaten 
that she could not see her boyfriend unless she had an abortion. Ms. 
Carroll was so concerned about their behavior, she called the police 
and even went so far as to contact a nearby abortion clinic to ensure 
that parental consent would be required before an abortion would be 
allowed. Pennsylvania's law requires that anyone under the age of 18 
have consent of a parent before an abortion can be performed. 
Unfortunately, other States nearby do not have the same protections.
  Shortly after, Ms. Carroll sent her daughter off to school, thinking 
she would be safe. Imagine yourself in the same position. Instead, her 
boyfriend and his family met her at the bus stop, bought them a train 
ticket, and sent the children to New Jersey, where other family members 
picked them up and took them to an abortion clinic. Despite her tears 
and desires to keep the baby, her boyfriend's family coerced her by 
telling her they would leave her in New Jersey with no way to get home. 
They planned, paid for, and threatened her into agreeing to an 
abortion. After the abortion, they dropped her off blocks from her 
house with no regard to her mental or physical well-being. Ms. Carroll 
called the local police department only to be told that there was 
nothing that could be done. This poor young girl, whose family was 
committed to loving her and respecting her decision, had her life 
forever altered by adults who never considered her wishes or the 
consequences such a decision would have on her life.
  Parental notification serves another vital purpose: ensuring 
increased protection against sexual exploitation of

[[Page S8152]]

minors by adult men. All too often, our young girls are the victims of 
predatory practices of men who are older, more experienced, and in a 
unique position to influence the minor's decisions. According to the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers 
have partners older than 20 years of age. Rather than face a statutory 
rape charge, these men or their families use the vulnerability of the 
young girl against her, exerting pressure on the girl to agree to an 
abortion without talking to her parents. We all know how easy it is to 
influence teenagers, boys or girls. In fact, in a survey of 1,500 
unmarried minors having abortions without their parent's knowledge, 89 
percent said that a boyfriend was involved in the decision, and the 
number goes even higher the younger the age of the minor. Allowing 
secret abortions does nothing to expose these men and their heinous 
conduct.
  Such is the case with Crystal, the 12-year-old daughter of a 
Pennsylvania woman, who was intoxicated and raped by a local teenager 6 
years her senior. Crystal's mother did not even know she was pregnant 
until Crystal went missing from school and it was discovered that her 
rapist's mother had taken her across State lines into New York where, 
scared and confused, she received an abortion. When Crystal developed 
complications from the incomplete abortion, the clinic physician 
refused to supply the medical records to her mother. Crystal's mother, 
a loving and responsible parent, was not even given the option to care 
for her daughter. Rather, the decision was made for her by an unknown 
adult.
  There is overwhelming agreement that parents and parental 
notification laws and consent laws are important tools that enable 
parents to help protect their daughters from this kind of abuse. In 
1998, Dr. Bruce Lucero, an abortionist who performed some 45,000 
abortions, wrote of his support for the Child Custody Protection Act to 
the New York Times. In the article, Dr. Lucero pointed out that 
``dangerous complications are more likely to result when parents are 
not involved in these out-of-state abortions.'' He goes on to say that 
parental involvement is the best guarantee that a minor will make the 
best and most safe decision. This is an abortionist doctor talking.
  In the unfortunate instance of abuse or where there is rape or incest 
involved within a family, minors may be afraid to go to one of the 
parents--and rightfully so. In response, judicial bypass laws have been 
written across the country to protect the minor.
  This legislation is a commonsense solution to defeat the legal 
loophole that currently results from parents being denied the right to 
know about the health decisions of their minor daughters.
  The Child Custody Protection Act in no way imposes a parental 
involvement law on a State that does not already have a functioning law 
in place. It does not invalidate any State law, nor does this act 
contradict Supreme Court precedent dealing with minors and abortion.
  In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned Parenthood v. 
Casey that it is the State's right to declare that abortion should not 
be performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted.
  Mr. President, is it time for the adjournment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, it is.
  Mrs. BOXER. Since my colleague has spoken for 10 or 15 minutes----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven and a half minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to have 5 minutes to respond. I thought we 
were going to start the debate after the luncheons. Upon his 
conclusion, perhaps in the next minute or so, may I have a few minutes 
to open?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more 
seconds and 5 minutes for my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned 
Parenthood v. Casey that it is the State's right to declare that an 
abortion should not be performed on a minor unless a parent is 
consulted.
  This is not an argument on the merits of abortion. Rather, this is a 
debate about preserving the fundamental rights of parents to have 
knowledge about health decisions of their minor daughters.
  Let me conclude with this. This is one of the biggest moral issues of 
the day, the right to have an abortion or not. It splits America. The 
emotions are high. There are good people on both sides of the debate. 
We need to look for common ground, where we can come together and at 
least have some reasonable restrictions on abortion. I believe this 
bill is one of those reasonable restrictions on abortion that I think 
all of us should come together on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. I rise 
to speak as a mother and a grandmother--a mother of a daughter and a 
son, a grandmother of a grandson, and a Senator who has been here now 
for three terms, and I served over in the House for many years--to say 
that my friend from Nevada is right that this is not a parental consent 
bill at all.
  Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular 
State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask 
them do they want their kids to come to their parents, absolutely. But 
if you ask them should you force them to do so, even in circumstances 
where there could be trouble that comes from that, they say no.
  I respect those States that have parental consent laws, and perhaps 
we will have a law that is drafted in California that the voters will 
approve. So far, we have not seen that.
  It is true it is not a partisan issue. When we voted down those laws, 
we did it regardless of political party. But the reason is unintended 
consequences in the way certain bills are drafted. I want to speak to 
that because I believe this bill is well-intentioned.
  This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we 
have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be 
fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be 
open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we 
want to have happen.
  The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our 
families? That is where we will differ.
  I have to tell you, as I look at this bill coming before us now, I 
have to ask the question: why are my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who run this place, who run the House, who run the White 
House, putting so much effort into this bill, having killed stem cell 
research, which all of our families are desperate to have--talk about 
80 percent of America, it is 90 percent who want to find cures to 
Alzheimer's and all the rest. Oh, no, instead of getting another chance 
to pass that bill and convince the President, who is now backing off a 
little bit in his rhetoric, to sign a stem cell research bill, or to 
prevent teen pregnancies, which is so important, we don't have that. We 
have this bill that impacts very few people. Instead of improving the 
health of women and girls, we are spending precious time on a bill 
that, in essence, protects incest predators. This bill, as it is 
written, protects fathers who commit incest. Can you imagine? It allows 
them to drive their daughter across State lines. Unbelievable. We are 
going to try to fix this problem with an amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will support that, and it will improve this bill.
  Right now, imagine, a father retains parental rights if he has 
committed rape on his daughter. This is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy 
bill? I don't think so. It also throws grandmothers in jail.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. When I am finished.
  This bill, as it is drafted, will throw a grandmother in jail. Say 
the father committed incest on the daughter and she is hysterical. The 
first place she goes is not some judge but to her grandma, who she 
adores and who gives her unconditional love, or to her priest or rabbi, 
and says please help me out of this. That incestuous father, as the 
bill is written, can sue that caring adult who takes her over the line.
  My friend is going to offer an amendment that goes part of the way on 
the incest provision. It will say the father cannot sue. I am so happy 
because I will join him in that. I hope we have a 100-to-0 vote. But I 
am shocked that we

[[Page S8153]]

cannot reach agreement on that. Talk about finding common ground. Even 
with the Ensign amendment that says a father cannot sue, he can still 
take the daughter across State lines. And the Federal Government can 
still sue the grandmother or the clergy.
  This debate is just beginning. The Senator from Nevada and I are 
friends, but we will have a tough debate. I hope we will vote for the 
Democratic amendment to improve this bill.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________