[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.
____________________