[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7412-H7422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1039, I
call up the Senate 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, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution
1039, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House
Report 109-79 is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 26, 2006--On Page H 7412 the following appeared: The
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FOLEY). Pursuant to House Resolution
1039, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House
Report 109-69 is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is
considered read. The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as
follows: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore (Mr. FOLEY). Pursuant to House Resolution 1039, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report
109-679 is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is considered
read. The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
========================= END NOTE =========================
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act''.
SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN
LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION.
Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
chapter 117 the following:
``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN
LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION
``Sec
[[Page H7413]]
``2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws
relating to abortion.
``2432. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws
relating to abortion.
``Sec. 2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of
certain laws relating to abortion
``(a) Offense.--
``(1) Generally.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line,
with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and
thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision, in force in the State where the minor resides,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.
``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, an
abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is
performed or induced on the minor, in a State or a foreign
nation other than the State where the minor resides, without
the parental consent or notification, or the judicial
authorization, that would have been required by that law had
the abortion been performed in the State where the minor
resides.
``(b) Exceptions.--
``(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply if
the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor
because her life was endangered by a physical disorder,
physical injury, or physical illness, including a life
endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the
pregnancy itself.
``(2) A minor transported in violation of this section, and
any parent of that minor, may not be prosecuted or sued for a
violation of this section, a conspiracy to violate this
section, or an offense under section 2 or 3 based on a
violation of this section.
``(c) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to
a prosecution for an offense, or to a civil action, based on
a violation of this section that the defendant--
``(1) reasonably believed, based on information the
defendant obtained directly from a parent of the minor, that
before the minor obtained the abortion, the parental consent
or notification took place that would have been required by
the law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision, had the abortion been performed in the State where
the minor resides; or
``(2) was presented with documentation showing with a
reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the minor's
State of residence waived any parental notification required
by the laws of that State, or otherwise authorized that the
minor be allowed to procure an abortion.
``(d) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a
violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in
a civil action unless the parent has committed an act of
incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `abortion' means the use or prescription of
any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or
device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female
known to be pregnant, with an intention other than to
increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the
life or health of the child after live birth, to terminate an
ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died
as the result of a spontaneous abortion, accidental trauma or
a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn
child;
``(2) the term a `law requiring parental involvement in a
minor's abortion decision' means a law--
``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a
minor, either--
``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that
minor; or
``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the
requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or
consent of any person or entity who is not described in that
subparagraph;
``(3) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older
than the maximum age requiring parental notification or
consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision;
``(4) the term `parent' means--
``(A) a parent or guardian;
``(B) a legal custodian; or
``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and
control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly
resides, who is designated by the law requiring parental
involvement in the minor's abortion decision as a person to
whom notification, or from whom consent, is required; and
``(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia
and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the
United States, and any Indian tribe or reservation.
``Sec. 2432. Transportation of minors in circumvention of
certain laws relating to abortion
``Notwithstanding section 2431(b)(2), whoever has committed
an act of incest with a minor and knowingly transports the
minor across a State line with the intent that such minor
obtain an abortion, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both. For the purposes
of this section, the terms `State', `minor', and `abortion'
have, respectively, the definitions given those terms in
section 2435.''.
SEC. 3. CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION.
Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
chapter 117A the following:
``CHAPTER 117B--CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION
``Sec
``2435. Child interstate abortion notification
``Sec. 2435. Child interstate abortion notification
``(a) Offense.--
``(1) Generally.--A physician who knowingly performs or
induces an abortion on a minor in violation of the
requirements of this section shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
``(2) Parental notification.--A physician who performs or
induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of a State
other than the State in which the abortion is performed must
provide, or cause his or her agent to provide, at least 24
hours actual notice to a parent of the minor before
performing the abortion. If actual notice to such parent is
not possible after a reasonable effort has been made, 24
hours constructive notice must be given to a parent.
``(b) Exceptions.--The notification requirement of
subsection (a)(2) does not apply if--
``(1) the abortion is performed or induced in a State that
has, in force, a law requiring parental involvement in a
minor's abortion decision and the physician complies with the
requirements of that law;
``(2) the physician is presented with documentation showing
with a reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the
minor's State of residence has waived any parental
notification required by the laws of that State, or has
otherwise authorized that the minor be allowed to procure an
abortion;
``(3) the minor declares in a signed written statement that
she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse
by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the
minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to
receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the
State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected
abuse or neglect;
``(4) the abortion is necessary to save the life of the
minor because her life was endangered by a physical disorder,
physical injury, or physical illness, including a life
endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the
pregnancy itself, or because in the reasonable medical
judgment of the minor's attending physician, the delay in
performing an abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior
notification requirement of subsection (a)(2) would cause a
substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
function of the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not
including psychological or emotional conditions, but an
exception under this paragraph does not apply unless the
attending physician or an agent of such physician, within 24
hours after completion of the abortion, notifies a parent in
writing that an abortion was performed on the minor and of
the circumstances that warranted invocation of this
paragraph; or
``(5) the minor is physically accompanied by a person who
presents the physician or his agent with documentation
showing with a reasonable degree of certainty that he or she
is in fact the parent of that minor.
``(c) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a
violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in
a civil action unless the parent has committed an act of
incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `abortion' means the use or prescription of
any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or
device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female
known to be pregnant, with an intention other than to
increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the
life or health of the child after live birth, to terminate an
ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died
as the result of a spontaneous abortion, accidental trauma,
or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn
child;
``(2) the term `actual notice' means the giving of written
notice directly, in person, by the physician or any agent of
the physician;
``(3) the term `constructive notice' means notice that is
given by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted
delivery to the last known address of the person being
notified, with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours
following noon on the next day subsequent to mailing on which
regular mail delivery takes place, days on which mail is not
delivered excluded;
``(4) the term a `law requiring parental involvement in a
minor's abortion decision' means a law--
``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a
minor, either--
``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that
minor; or
``(ii) proceedings in a State court;
``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the
requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or
consent of any person or entity who is not described in that
subparagraph;
``(5) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older
than 18 years and who is not emancipated under State law;
``(6) the term `parent' means--
``(A) a parent or guardian;
``(B) a legal custodian; or
``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and
control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly
resides;
[[Page H7414]]
as determined by State law;
``(7) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine
legally authorized to practice medicine by the State in which
such doctor practices medicine, or any other person legally
empowered under State law to perform an abortion; and
``(8) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia
and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the
United States, and any Indian tribe or reservation.''.
SEC. 4. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
item relating to chapter 117 the following new items:
``117A. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws
relating to abortion.........................................2431
``117B. Child interstate abortion notification..................2435''.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any
provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found
unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision
or application of the Act not so adjudicated.
(b) This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill, S.
403, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody
Protection Act. As amended by the rule, the legislation before us
contains provisions substantially similar to H.R. 748, the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which overwhelmingly passed the
House in April of 2005 by a vote of 270-157.
{time} 1645
Laws that require parental notification of a minor's abortion are
overwhelmingly supported by the American people. A 2005 poll by Pew
Research Center found that large majorities believe that girls under 18
should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the
poll, half of self-described liberal Democrats favor requiring young
women to get the consent of at least one parent before getting an
abortion, and nearly three-quarters of moderate or conservative
Democrats favor requiring parental consent.
Across the country, parental consent is required before performing
routine medical services, such as providing aspirin, before permitting
children to go on field trips or participate in contact sports, or
before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. Yet people other than
parents can secretly take children across State lines for abortion
without their parents' knowledge.
The legislation we consider on the floor today addresses this absurd
dichotomy by establishing clear rules to protect the health and
physical safety of young girls, while safeguarding fundamental parental
rights.
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, for short,
contains two central provisions. The first makes it a Federal crime to
transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in another
State or foreign country in order to avoid a State law requiring
parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Twenty-six States
currently have such parental involvement laws. This provision will
prevent abusive boyfriends and older men who may have committed rape
from pressuring young girls into receiving secret out-of-State
abortions to keep the abuser's sexual crimes hidden from authorities.
It is crucial to emphasize that the first section of CIANA does not
apply to the minors themselves, nor to their parents, nor does it apply
in life-threatening emergencies that may require an immediate abortion.
The second section of CIANA contains a parental notification rule
that applies in cases in which a minor is a resident of one State and
presents herself for an abortion in another State that does not have a
parental involvement law. In these circumstances, CIANA makes it a
Federal crime for the abortion provider to fail to give one of the
minor's parents or legal guardian 24 hours' notice of the minor's
abortion decision before the abortion is performed. This section
protects fundamental parental rights by giving parents a chance to help
their young daughters in difficult circumstances. This includes giving
a health care provider the daughter's medical history to ensure that
she receives safe medical care.
The second section of CIANA would not apply if an applicable parental
law in the State where the abortion is being performed is complied
with. In addition, Section 2 would not apply if the physician is
presented with documentation that a court in the minor's home State has
authorized an abortion.
Further exceptions to this section include if the minor states that
she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider
informs the State authorities of such abuse, or if a life-threatening
or other medical emergency requires that the abortion be performed
immediately.
As previously noted, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
S. 403 is substantially similar to H.R. 748 but also includes
clarifying provisions adopted in the other body and other technical
changes which further improve the legislation.
The amendment would prevent a parent who has committed incest from
being able to obtain money damages under the bill's provisions, and it
makes it a Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to
transport a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion.
In addition, the substitute contains an exception to the notification
requirement if a parent is physically present when the minor obtains
the abortion. The amendment also makes clear that the parental
notification need not be provided by the abortion provider personally
but by an agent of the abortion provider.
The amendment also contains a technical change to the definition of
abortion that excludes treatment for potentially dangerous pregnancies
and creates a new medical emergency exception to ensure that the
legislation will withstand any constitutional challenge.
Finally, it makes clear that the bill's provisions apply when State
lines are crossed to enter any foreign nation or Tribal lands.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation
to protect the health and safety of America's minor daughters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which we have already considered in
this Congress, poses a real threat to the lives and health of young
women. It would require a minor who is pregnant, possibly as a result
of parental abuse, incest, to carry the parental notification laws of
her home State on her back to another State and hold doctors,
grandparents, clergy and anyone else who tries to help her a criminal.
The sponsors, not satisfied with extending State laws into other
States, now want to enforce those State laws in other countries.
Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we
used the power of the Federal Government to enforce the laws of one
State on the territory of another.
This latest crazy quilt of restrictions obviously has but one
purpose, to impede the practice of medicine, to ensure that young women
will have as few options as possible, to make criminals of relatives
and adults, or minors, for that manner, who try to help them, and to
teach those States, such as mine, that do not believe that these laws
promote adolescent health, that Congress knows best and our citizens
and our States do not.
Often, that adult assisting the minor is a grandparent, a sibling or
member of the clergy. In some cases, the young woman may not be able to
go to her parents because the parents are a danger to her.
We all agree that, ideally, a young woman faced with a choice of
having abortion should go to her parents. But
[[Page H7415]]
in some cases she may not be able to. That is what happened to Spring
Adams, a 13-year-old from Idaho. She was shot to death by her father
after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a
pregnancy caused by his own act of incest. But, under this bill, anyone
who helped her cross the State line to get an abortion without telling
her father so she could get shot would be guilty of a crime.
This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical emergency that
seems to have been lifted from one of Attorney General Gonzalez's
infamous torture memos. The prohibition ``does not apply if the
abortion is necessary to save the life of the minor because her life
was endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury or physical
illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
arising from the pregnancy itself or because in the reasonable medical
judgment of the minor's attending physician the delay in performing the
abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior requirement would cause a
substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of
the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not including psychological
or emotional condition,'' so long as the physician notifies the parent
within 24 hours.
The bill now also excludes ectopic pregnancies and the removal of a
dead fetus, for which I suppose civilized people should be grateful.
It is progress, although it still falls far short of the protection
for a woman's health required by the Constitution, which the courts
have ruled requires an explicit exception to protect the life or health
of the woman, not just those few conditions a few extremists find
acceptable.
No mental health exception? That is the only justification for
helping a young woman who has been raped by her father. There is
certainly no physical risk, yet this bill would require a doctor to
seek that father's permission.
There are many things far short of death or a substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function that can endanger a
young woman. She deserves prompt and professional medical care, and no
matter how much some people don't like it, the Constitution protects
her right to receive that care.
In a perfect world, loving, supportive and understanding families
would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in
the majority of cases, with or without a law.
But we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent. Some
parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy or
to a grandparent or a sibling or some other trusted adult. And this
bill would turn those people into criminals.
If a 16-year-old girl was accompanied across a State line by her 16-
year-old boyfriend for an abortion, this would make the boyfriend a
criminal. If a rabbi or priest or minister helped her across the State
line, knowing that her father or mother were violent and therefore they
couldn't dare ask for parental notification, this would turn them into
a criminal. The same thing with a grandfather or a brother or a sister.
We should not be turning people who are helping people in distress into
criminals. That is wrong.
This bill, although slightly modified, is as wrong and as dangerous
today as it was when this House considered this last time.
There is another thing, too. We believe in 50 different States in
this country. We believe in State sovereignty within the Federal
limits. We call the States laboratories of democracy.
Many States, I think more than half, have chosen to have parental
consent notification laws. Other States have chosen not to. We ought to
respect the States that have chosen not to, as well as those that have
chosen to do so. And to say that because someone comes from a State
with a parental notification law, if she goes to a State without a
parental notification law, someone who helps her to go there is
committing a crime, I think that is unconstitutional and is a violation
of the right to interstate commerce, to interstate travel.
But it also, as I said before, is an attempt to say to New York,
which does not require parental notification and consent, that the law
of some other State which does must prevail in your State as long as
the person comes from that State. She can't escape it. She carries it
with her on her back.
We have never tried to enforce the laws of one State in another like
that since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. It is not a good
precedent. This bill deserves to be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of
the bill, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee for his leadership throughout the years that
this bill has been before us.
I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill
that has indeed passed the House in 1998, in 1999 and in 2002, making
it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order
to circumvent that State's abortion parental notification laws.
The legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense one.
It protects minors from exploitation from the abortion industry, it
promotes strong family ties, and it helps foster respect for State
laws.
A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain
hour or to get her ears pierced without parental consent is certainly
not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous and potentially fatal
decision such as an abortion without the consultation or consent of at
least one parent.
Language included in this legislation will also require that an
abortion provider notify a parent when a minor is transported to a
State where no parental notification laws exist. This provision is a
central component to my legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act, CIANA, which passed in the House with a vote of 270
in favor and 157 against.
I am truly pleased and honored that my colleagues in the House and
Mr. Sensenbrenner have given this important bill further consideration,
and I urge them once again to join me in supporting legislation that
speaks to the well-being of all of our daughters.
This legislation will put an end to the abortion clinics and family
planning organizations that are really exploiting young, vulnerable
girls by luring them to recklessly disobey State laws.
About 80 percent of the public favors parental notification laws.
Over 50 percent of our States have enacted such laws. Yet sometimes
these laws can be evaded by interstate transportation of minors, openly
encouraging them to do so in advertising by abortion providers.
Parental consent and parental notification laws may vary from State
to State, but they have all been made with the same purpose in mind,
Mr. Speaker, to protect frightened and confused adolescent girls from
harm.
I urge my colleagues to once again support this vital piece of
legislation, uphold the safety laws designed by individual States and
protect the parents' rights to be involved in decisions involving their
minor daughters.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding and for his steadfast support on behalf of women's health and
a woman's right to choose.
I rise today to defend once again a woman's right to choose what is
best for her own body. Prohibiting interstate travel for an abortion
and punishing those who participated in that travel fails to protect
the health and safety of women and their children.
This bill subjects taxi drivers and bus drivers and other
transportation professionals to jail time, mind you, jail time,
although they had no knowledge of the activity. Are we in good
conscience going to legislate penalties against innocent people who do
not have knowledge or control over the actions of their customers? Are
we encouraging cabbies and bus drivers to start asking every person,
every woman that gets into a cab or on a bus, if they are pregnant or
are they going to have an abortion, because they want to limit their
liability?
{time} 1700
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, how could anyone support this bill knowing
that some of these minors, knowing this, that some of these minors may
have
[[Page H7416]]
decided to have an abortion because they have been raped by a family
member or a guardian? This is simply bad public policy. It will turn
back the clock not only on choice but on privacy for young women.
The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent
unintended pregnancies, and the best way to do that is through access
to contraception and comprehensive sex education. So if my colleagues
really wanted to reduce abortions, they would support H.R. 2553, the
Responsible Education About Life Act, or REAL Act, which would allow
full and comprehensive sex education for our young people.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues would rather put cabbies and
drivers in jail than take real steps to reduce the number of unwanted
pregnancies in this Nation.
This bill is nothing short of a public misinformation campaign from
the conservative religious right to hinder the safety and the health of
women and girls throughout the country. This bill is intentionally
dangerous, it is vague, it is harmful to women, it is harmful to
women's health and the decisions that she must make about her body.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the gentleman's work on this bill and
many bills throughout the years. I rise today in support of the Child
Custody Protection Act because it returns the fundamental right of
parenting back where it belongs: to parents.
Eight in 10 Americans favor parental notification laws. Forty-four
States have recognized the important role of parents in a minor child's
decision to have an abortion by enacting parental involvement statutes.
Even so, many of these laws are being circumvented by individuals who
simply transport girls across State lines to another State without
parental notification laws. And, too often, these individuals are grown
men who have sexually preyed on underaged girls and use abortions to
cover up their crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a parent's right to
control the care of their children is among the most the fundamental of
all liberty interests. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized
that parents have a legal right to be involved in their minor
daughter's decision to seek medical care, including abortion.
The Supreme Court has also observed that, and I quote, ``the medical,
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious
and can be lasting. It seems unlikely that the minor will obtain
adequate counsel and support from the attending physician at an
abortion clinic where the abortions for pregnant minors frequently take
place.''
The Supreme Court has also stated that, and I quote, ``minors often
lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid
choices that could be detrimental to them.''
Mr. Speaker, no one has a child's best interest at heart more than
their parents. Minors have to have parental permission to be given an
aspirin by the school nurse. Twenty-six States have laws requiring
parental consent before minors can get body piercings or tattoos.
Parents must be able to play a role when their minor daughter is
contemplating such an important decision as what to do with an
unplanned pregnancy.
Please join me in supporting the Child Custody Protection Act.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his great leadership on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, young girls desperately need the modest protections
against exploitation contained in the Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act, and they need these protections now, without any
further delay.
It is inhumane and unjust that abortion mills in New Jersey and some
other States aggressively advertise and market secret abortions for
pregnant minors living in States that have enacted and enforce parental
involvement statutes. The Yellow Pages in Pennsylvania, for example,
are filled with ads for children to procure secret abortions in my home
State. That is unconscionable.
The fact that older men, including statutory rapists, can secretly
transport and perhaps pressure or coerce teenagers to go to abortion
mills for an abortion even as late as 6 months is wrong.
Who protects the teenagers from abuse? The abortionist? The male who
wants the baby dead to evade responsibility?
Policies that enable abortion clinics to circumvent State parental
involvement laws recklessly and irreversibly endanger the health,
safety, and well-being of young girls.
Mr. Speaker, not only are babies being slaughtered at abortion
clinics, and let's not kid ourselves, the soothing rhetoric of the
abortion industry has anesthetized many people to the inherent violence
against children of every abortion. Chemical poison and dismemberment
is violence against children. But minor girls as well have become
physically wounded and emotionally wounded by the abortion. They become
the walking wounded.
Ask yourselves, when health or emotional complications occur, do we
really think a young girl and her shocked and broken parents return to
the abortion mill? I think not.
Finally, I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for
the exemplary work they have done on this bill, especially the highly
persuasive, heavily footnoted majority commentary in the report
accompanying the bill. I wish more Members had the time or made the
time to read it. It makes a cogent case for this bill, and I urge
support for this important bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Schmidt).
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly rise in support of the Child
Custody Protection Act.
Every State has laws that require minors to get parental consent
before they are allowed to do simple things like getting an aspirin or
going on field trips. In many States, parents must give permission
before their children can get tattoos and body piercings. There are
reasons for placing these restrictions on minors' freedom, because
minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to
recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them. One of
the main roles of parents is to protect children from their own
inexperience, lack of perspective, and judgment.
Twenty-six States have considered this issue and determined that it
is not appropriate for minors to have abortions without any parental
involvement. Yet the considered judgment of those State legislatures
and parents in general are easily circumvented by the simple act of
driving across a State line.
It is time to restore the rights of parents and States. As a wife and
a mother, I agree. We in Congress have a duty. I ask for your support.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions about this bill that are completely
aside from the merits. One is, why are we doing this bill? We passed
the bill earlier. We passed essentially this bill earlier this session,
the Senate passed a bill, and now we are passing a bill that isn't the
same as the Senate bill. Why? So that no law, so nothing becomes law
this year.
So I would like to ask the chairman, the distinguished chairman, why
we are not passing the same bill the Senate passed? Because, otherwise,
there is no possibility, as I see it, of getting an agreement before we
leave.
I will yield.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Senate bill has loopholes wide enough to drive a 18-wheeler
through. If we are doing something, we might as well do something that
means a bit rather than simply passing a piece of paper.
Mr. NADLER. Then why are we passing a bill again that we already
passed earlier this year if the Senate bill is not the same and is not
satisfactory?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will further yield, this is in
the hopes that the Senate will look at this modified bill in prayerful
reflection and send it on to the President.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. In other words, we pass the bill, the
Senate passed a different bill which the distinguished chairman thinks
has
[[Page H7417]]
many loopholes, and may have, I haven't read it, and so we are coming
back.
Here we are, the last week before we adjourn, we haven't passed any
of the appropriations bills into law, not one, and we are spending time
on this bill when we have already passed it. And if the Senate has not
passed it and they want to, they should negotiate with the Senate, they
should have a conference committee. Instead, we are passing it again.
And I have to assume that the real reason we are doing it is just for
political reasons, to rev up the troops of the antiabortion people for
the election, and there is no real intent to pass a bill.
I have another question. This bill says in the key line: Whoever
knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that
such minor obtains an abortion, blah, blah shall be fined or
imprisoned.
My question, sir, and I will yield to you, is what does ``transport''
mean?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, it means the same
thing as the transportation of someone across the State line in
violation of the Mann Act.
Mr. NADLER. Well, then reclaiming my time, I think that this bill is
simply not very well drafted in that case, because in the Mann Act
certain things are obvious.
Let's assume that you have a young woman and a young man, her
boyfriend, who jointly go across State lines to get her an abortion.
She is driving. She is transporting him, not the other way around.
Should someone be guilty or not guilty depending on who is driving and
who is not driving? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Mr. Speaker, the arguments against this bill are manifold.
Number one, the arguments against parental notification and consent
are where you have a violent parent or where you have a parent that the
child cannot confide in, you shouldn't require that. Ninety percent of
the time there is no problem, it is fine. Sometimes there is, and you
risk the life or the health of the child to require that she tell the
parent that she is pregnant.
Number two, in such a situation, the child may confide, hopefully,
there is someone she can confide in, her brother, her sister, her best
friend, her clergyman, her teacher, and we would make them criminals if
they help her.
The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the abortionist conspiring
to take her across State lines. It is not the abortionist. It is a
friend or a colleague or a clergyman or a grandparent. You shouldn't
make criminals of them. Nor should we seek to enforce the law of one
State in another State.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. And. Finally, and after this statement I will yield, this
law also says that if someone is asked to perform, if a doctor is asked
to perform an abortion on a young woman, on a minor from another State,
he must notify the parents in that State whether or not that State
requires parental notification. So we are expanding, we are now putting
the Federal Government and saying to a State when only two States are
involved, neither which have a parental notification law, you must
because we say so. There is no justification for that.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me make it very clear. What I just said was that if you go to the
Yellow Pages and look at some of the ads and in newspapers and in other
media, the abortionists actively try to solicit young girls 13, 14, 15,
16, to go across State lines. And you know as well as I do adult males,
including predatory males, read those ads and act. All they have to do
is go to New Jersey or some State other than Pennsylvania, where there
is no parental involvement law, and thereby circumvent the parental
notification, parental consent in that particular State.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. I can understand that particular
concern if this bill made it a crime to transport a minor across State
lines for the purpose of getting an abortion, et cetera, et cetera, for
money. If that person transporting that young girl were being paid to
do it, then I think that there might be something we would want to do
about that. But we are not talking about that. Well, we may be talking
about that, but the bill is certainly not limited to that.
The bill applies to the situation where the person, quote, unquote,
transporting her may be her boyfriend, her brother or sister, her
grandmother, her uncle, her aunt, her best friend or clergyman or a
teacher. Anyone who is doing it with the best motives to help her, with
whom some of us here may disagree that that is the best motive, but it
is not a predatory motive.
So if you want to write a bill against a predatory person, write a
bill against the predatory person. Write a bill against someone who
does it for a commercial reason, for pay, but not against all these
other people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a while to
yield a minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this
issue and his perseverence in allowing this bill to come to the floor.
Imagine a nation that has to rush to embrace abortion so much that a
parent isn't notified that an individual that that family doesn't know
is transporting their child, their minor teenager across State lines.
It is the idea that the parents don't know who may be transporting
their children and the parents don't know that their child is having an
abortion that we debate today. This measure brings parental rights back
into reasonable norms.
There are many groups out there working to influence our children. As
the gentleman from New Jersey talked about, there is one Web site right
now from the Coalition for Positive Sexuality, a charade that informs
teens about abortions by stating, ``usually you can get around telling
your parents by going to a clinic in a State without these restrictions
or explaining your situation to a judge. But this takes time. So call
us right away.''
In my own State of Arizona, there is currently a parental consent law
that requires permission of at least one parent. So even if you do have
a violent parent, you can still go to one of your other parents. But it
means nothing. Because you can go to our neighboring States, California
and New Mexico, and have an abortion. In many cases, our teenagers are
being driven by people their parents don't even know.
This is reasonable to protect the rights of our children. Let's pass
the bill.
{time} 1715
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and commend him for his leadership in this area. I rise in strong
support of this amendment.
Despite widespread support for parental involvement laws and clear
public policy considerations justifying them, substantial evidence
exists that such laws are regularly evaded by individuals who transport
minors to abortion providers in States that do not have parental
notification and consent laws.
Confused and frightened young girls are routinely assisted by adults
in obtaining abortions and are encouraged to avoid parental involvement
by crossing State lines. Often these girls are guided by those who do
not share the love and affection that most parents have for their
children. Personal accounts indicate that sexual predators recognize
the advantage they have over their victims and use this influence to
encourage abortions in order to eliminate critical evidence of their
criminal conduct and in turn allowing the abuse to continue undetected.
Although not an interstate abortion, in my district in Cincinnati
there is an ongoing court case involving parental rights. A teenage
girl, 13 at the time of the abortion, was given parental consent by a
man posing as her stepbrother. This man, her abuser, was later
convicted on seven charges of sexual battery.
Most recently, a judge ordered Planned Parenthood to turn over
medical records in determining whether there was a pattern and practice
within the clinic of violating parental consent laws.
[[Page H7418]]
Public policy is clear that parents should be involved in decisions
that their daughters make regarding abortions. CIANA will assist in
enforcing existing parental involvement laws that meet the relevant
constitutional criteria and will provide for parental involvement when
minors cross State lines to have abortions.
I urge my colleagues to support CIANA. There is no question that
parents are the ones that should be involved in this type of critical
decision. It shouldn't be the abuser or the rapist. I thank the
chairman for pushing this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, this bill does nothing to
prevent unwanted pregnancies and does nothing to stop a minor from
crossing State lines to get an abortion on her own. Rather, it creates
criminal penalties for those trusted confidants whom the woman turns to
when she find herself in a difficult situation.
In an ideal world, young women should turn to their parents for
advice, guidance, and comfort. But in the real world, this is not
always the case. And in some scenarios, parental involvement is not
even in the best interest of the girl.
This bill would impose criminal penalties on anyone who assists a
young woman to cross a State line in order to obtain an abortion,
whether it is a grandparent, an aunt, older sibling, or trusted friend.
In addition, because of the way the law is written, it would even
impose criminal penalties on a cab driver who drops off a young woman
at an abortion clinic if that clinic happens to be across the State
line.
Further, there are unrealistic and unworkable mandates involving the
notice provisions in the bill which also potentially violate principles
of confidentiality. And so this bill threatens to increase the risk of
harm to young women in difficult family situations by delaying access
to appropriate medical care, and that is why the bill is opposed by the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine,
the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American
Public Health Association.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill raises numerous constitutional
questions. The Supreme Court has made clear that any valid abortion law
must have an adequate medical emergency exception. The Court has also
ruled that access to medical care in emergencies must also be
maintained. The provisions contained in the bill have limited access in
situations, and so the bill is clearly inconsistent with established
constitutional law.
Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent. It does not
prevent unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Rather, it encourages young
girls to make difficult decisions on their own without help, increasing
the potential harm to their physical and emotional well-being. That is
why it is not supported by medical organizations with expertise in this
field. Furthermore, it raises serious constitutional questions. I urge
my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, just in reference
to comments that were made several times by people on the other side of
the aisle that this would cover a cab driver or bus driver, I would
hope that they would look at the language of the bill. It says whoever
knowingly transports a minor across State line with the intent that the
minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a
parent. So that is not just someone who gives them transportation,
someone who intentionally brings them across a State line with the
intent that they obtain an abortion.
Mr. Speaker, since merely identical legislation passed the House in
April 2005 by a vote of 270-157, there have been several developments
that make it clearer of the need to pass this bill. First, a Pew
Research Center poll found that large majorities in all religious
groups and about two-thirds of nonchurchgoers believe girls under 18
should receive parental consent before an abortion.
According to the Pew Research Center poll, as has been the case for
more than a decade, most of the public favors requiring women under age
18 to obtain the consent of at least one parent before being allowed to
get an abortion. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support such a
requirement, while just 22 are opposed.
The point I make on this is that this bill is not out of the
mainstream. This bill is right in the mainstream. This bill is to allow
the enforcement of State laws that are constitutional with respect to
parental notification. To evade parental notification laws by means of
taking a young girl across a State line is what this bill is aimed at.
Nothing more, nothing less than that. It is appropriate. It is
consistent with the vast majority of people in the United States. It is
consistent with the 33 States in the Union that have enacted such
legislation.
What it does is it requires intent on the part of the actor, that is,
they must intentionally act to evade the law in order to assist in
procuring an abortion for a young person in a State where notification
is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues that are
listening to this debate will probably claim its defining moment as
redundancy. It is redundant because this is a bill that has been
debated and discussed, and now it is an amendment to S. 403 which
creates a lack of opportunity for any legislative initiative to get to
the President's desk.
Far be it for any of us who happen to be parents and have young women
as daughters in our family to try to allow legislation to drive a
barrier between a child and her parents. Nor can we morally allow the
creation of chilling factors that prevent a youth from seeking help
when they desperately need it. There lies the angst and the confusion
and the misrepresentation of this debate.
This is not a helpful legislative initiative. This is, in fact, a
divisive initiative because we find that more than 61 percent of
parents in States without mandatory parental consent or at least 61
percent with notice laws have knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy.
The normal relationship of child and parent proceeds along a very
helpful manner as long as we do not provide unnecessary intrusion
beyond what has been accepted by the individual States.
The State of Texas has provided that kind of barrier. Twenty-three
States have, but another 23 have not committed to dividing parent from
child.
The greatest downside of this particular legislation is that it
doesn't come to this floor with clean hands. If it did, it would have
allowed us to have amendments, and this was a closed rule.
I offered just a year ago or so an amendment with Mr. Nadler that
expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions in this act of being able
to assist a young lady in her time of trouble, to give exemptions to
clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, family members
and clergy that would be giving comfort to this particular individual
who may be a victim of incest or rape and afraid and confused about the
utilization or the act of going to their parents. Although I said that
61 percent do have that relationship, there may be others that don't.
And so that would have been a responsible approach so that clergy
would not become felons, as well as godparents and aunts or uncles,
close family members. This country is used to and welcomes an extended
family, families of different configurations. And so this legislation
attempts to ignore that.
And, sadly, what it does is it makes a political point just days away
from elections, but it doesn't help our young people who may be
suffering with the decision that they have to make. It may be because
of incest or rape, or maybe they have been brutalized or they may be
frightened, and the comfort this particular relative can give them is
the kind of nurturing advice that will help them make a right decision.
[[Page H7419]]
Maybe we want to subject our young people who may be subjected to
decisions by parents who are forcing an abortion. It happens on either
side, and it happened in the case of a 19-year-old girl from Maine
because she was impregnated by an incarcerated person. So this is not a
question of getting an abortion or not getting an abortion. This is a
question of imploding family relations, and also altering the health
system of America.
It is a health issue. It is a health issue if the individual is
injured, a health issue if it is jeopardizing the life of the young
lady. And the American Medical Association, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians,
and the American Public Health Association, all oppose mandatory
involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and
the need for confidential access to physicians.
So we are being redundant because this is around and around and
around. This is over and over again. But there is no sincerity in
passing this legislation because instead of taking S. 403, we have
offered an alternative. That alternative will have to go back to the
Senate. There is some tongue-in-cheek comment about we hope the Senate
will consider our bill. Well, they are four days before the end of the
session before we go off for our work in the district. Then, of course,
there is a lame duck because this majority, Republican majority, has
not finished its work, as usual. I don't think this is a reality that
is going to happen.
My prayer is that we will come together for the young people and for
those impacted by this great tragedy and allow families to make
decisions as they should. Vote down this bill. It serves no purpose,
and it hurts the young people of America and divides families.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation before the House, S. 403, the
Child Custody Protection Act. The provisions contained within this
proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably punitive.
Given the usual slant of my good colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to favor uniformity in legislation, this bill is inconsistent
with that purpose. Overall, S. 403 would force physicians to learn and
enforce 49 other States' laws with respect to parental-involvement
requirements. On its face, one of the policies that this bill seeks to
enforce, the mandate that every parent will receive notice and can get
involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy, is a good one.
However, one of its harmful effects is that it is unnecessarily
punitive. In the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, young
women come to their parents before or while they consider abortion. A
study found that 61 percent of parents in States without mandatory
parental consent or notice laws had knowledge of their daughter's
pregnancy.
Major health associations such as the American Medical Association,
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American
College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association
strongly oppose mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the
dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access
to physicians. This legislation poses such a risk by increasing the
risk of harm to adolescents by obstructing their access to healthcare
that could save their lives.
In addition, well-respected organizations such as Planned Parenthood,
Pro Choice America, and People for the American Way have expressed
their opposition to this bill, which effectively isolates young women
in need of help, and forces to seek alternative illegal and unsafe
venues for terminating their pregnancy. After all, if you cannot trust
your parents or your doctor to help you, what are your alternatives?
According to an article by Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw,
only 13 percent of U.S. counties have abortion providers. Therefore,
the fact that many young women seek abortions outside of their home
state is not solely attributable to an avoidance of home state law.
The last time we saw this bill, I offered an amendment with Mr.
Nadler of New York that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions of
this act to include ``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or
first cousins.'' This amendment was a very simple but necessary
dampening of the excessive punitive nature of this legislation. This
amendment is also demonstrative of the negative consequences this bill
would directly and inadvertently cause. A young woman should not lose
her right to seek counsel and guidance from a member of the clergy, her
godparent, or the family member if she so desires.
The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian
framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My
state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA,
MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follow old
provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a
Federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across State lines for
abortion services if a woman comes from a State with a strict parental-
involvement mandate. There are 10 States (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OR,
SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice
but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement
may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental
consent. Finally, there are 17 States (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT,
NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a
woman's access to abortion in this case.
Given the disparity in State law requirements for the parental-
notification requirement, not giving a young woman the right to seek
assistance in deciding from a member of the clergy, a godparent, or
family member could increase the health risks that she faces.
Young women as a population group are more likely to seek abortion
later in their pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have
shown that adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions after the
first trimester, and younger women are more likely to obtain an
abortion at 21 weeks or more gestation. The provisions of S. 403 will
exacerbate this dangerous trend.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will add an unnecessary layer of legality,
travel time, and mandatory delay to the already difficult job that
physicians have in providing quality care to their patients. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently advocated
for protection of health care providers by way of tort reform. This
legislation flies in the face of that initiative and is totally
inconsistent with it.
We cannot let legislation drive a barrier between a child and her
parents, nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that
prevents a youth from seeking help when it is desperately needed. I ask
my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, some States have chosen to enact
parental consent and notification laws, others haven't. There is a case
against parental notification laws and consent laws because basically
there are a certain number of parents, certain families where you can't
ask the young girl to confide in her parents because they may subject
her to violence. Or she feels she can't.
But you do want a young woman to confide in somebody, not to be alone
in this time of great strain for her. You want her to be able to
confide in a brother or sister or clergyman or priest or rabbi or uncle
or aunt or grandparent or a teacher. And those people want to be able
to help her.
Now, as I said before, there may be room for legislation to say that
you shouldn't take people across State lines for the purpose of getting
an abortion for commercial purposes.
{time} 1730
But to make a criminal out of anybody who is trying to help a young
girl, as they see helping her, as she sees helping her because she
cannot confide in her parents, and especially if that helper may be the
grandparent or the brother or the sister or a clergyman is simply
wrong.
So this legislation is far too broad. It will place young women who
need help in a situation where they cannot get help. It doesn't serve
any useful purpose, and it should be defeated.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is fairly simple and straightforward. It says
that if a minor woman who is a resident of a State that requires some
type of parental involvement is taken to another State that does not
have a parental involvement law, it is a crime to do that. And it is as
simple as that.
Now the only reason why a woman would be taken from a State with a
parental involvement law to one that doesn't is to prevent the parents
from knowing that the woman is having an
[[Page H7420]]
abortion. Now we are talking about minors here, girls under the age of
18. A parent is responsible for providing for the health, safety, and
welfare of minor children that are either their own children or that
they have been named as guardians of by a competent court; and to avoid
the parents' responsibility of providing medical care by hiding the
fact that the woman is going across a State line to have an abortion is
wrong.
Now I think a lot of people don't like parental involvement laws. The
polling shows exactly the opposite. In my opening remarks, I pointed
out that half the people who call themselves liberal Democrats believe
that the parents ought to be involved in this decision; and three-
quarters of those who call themselves moderate or conservative
Democrats feel the same way.
I think that this House ought to empower parents to at least know
about these decisions, particularly if their minor daughters are taken
across a State line; and the way to deal with that issue is to pass the
bill.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the Child Custody Protection Act, which purports to ``give parents a
chance to help their daughters during their most vulnerable times'' and
would require doctors to give 24 hours' notice to a minor's parent
before allowing her to have an abortion.
I would like to remind my colleagues that what we are talking about
are young girls who are in trouble, young girls who are unmarried,
young girls who invariably, according to the statistics, have been
impregnated by older men exploiting them. While it should be common for
parents to be responsible, to be nurturing and not to be punitive,
unfortunately that is not always the case or quite as simple.
In a perfect world, teenagers would be able to tell their parents
that they are pregnant, but many are unable to due to fear of rejection
at home, threats of physical and emotional abuse, and in the most
troubling of situations, because it was a family member, such as a
stepfather, that put them in that position in the first place.
These teenage girls should have a right to seek help from a trusted
adult, such as a grandmother or a member of the clergy.
This bill will create a complicated patchwork of State and Federal
law that will apply differently depending on the minor's state of
residence and the state where the abortion is performed.
It will be nearly impossible for teenagers and physicians alike to
understand.
This measure would make it a Federal crime for a caring adult other
than a parent to accompany a young woman across State lines for an
abortion. In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act, goes even
further by mandating that doctors be fully aware and knowledgeable of
the mandatory parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, under
the threat of fines and prison sentences.
The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a Federal crime for a
doctor to perform an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another
State unless the doctor notifies the minor's parent, in person, a
minimum of 24 hours before the procedure, unless she is accompanied by
a parent.
It is also disturbing that this measure, not unlike the partial-birth
abortion ban law, does not include an exception for emergency
circumstances where a minor's health would be threatened by this delay.
It is no wonder that the constitutionality of this law is being
challenged in Federal courts as we speak.
The intent of this measure is not to ensure that caring parents have
access to their teenage daughters who are contemplating having an
abortion. The true intent is to make it so difficult for doctors to
comply with this law that they simply give up.
Instead of debating a bill that may not meet constitutional muster,
we should be considering the Prevention First Act which would help to
reduce the number of unintended teenage pregnancies by providing annual
funding to both public and private entities to establish or expand
teenage pregnancy prevention programs.
This measure would also require these entities to incorporate teenage
pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven to delay sexual
activity or reduce teenage pregnancy, through programs such as
comprehensive sexual education.
Why are we not doing more to help the 820,000 teen girls who get
pregnant each year?
I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Child Custody Protection
Act, a regressive measure, which will have no impact on reducing the
number of unintended teenage pregnancies and will do more harm than
good.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause
(preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the
Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a
national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes
and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of
parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride
the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in
the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a
Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which
the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after
all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as
trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor
females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered
more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a
single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively
and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the same time, I
have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural
protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control
of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill
usurps States' rights by creating yet another Federal crime.
Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited
powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for
which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For
every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or
consent of the governed and only the State governments, their
designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such
rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes clear that
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of
central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding
the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it
differently.
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits,
Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United
States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws
requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should
parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their
children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents' rights to not
have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes?
Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking
minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of
parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there
exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just
such an action the answer is absolutely not.
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with
criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States.
To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity
for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights
protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes
erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth
amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the
same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in
1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government
and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine
of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the
Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger
that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense.
Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a
national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while
they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes
that traditionally have been handled in State courts . . . threatens to
change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'' Meese stated that
Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of
offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the
principle that States are something more than mere administrative
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized
criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less
effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those
who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for
[[Page H7421]]
preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues
delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities
clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact
judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution
even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the
procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive
laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on
the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the
rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-
enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There
is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another
rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same
time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty
from centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an
``adequate'' Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court,
preempts States' rights to adequately address public health concerns.
Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making
matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in
vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than
shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government.
There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read'' It's ten o'clock;
do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to
the point where it reads'' It's ten o'clock; does the Federal
Government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and
burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal
Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to
be more involved.
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further
and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national
government and, accordingly, S. 403.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying bill, S. 403--the Child Custody Protection Act.
For too long, individuals have exploited State borders to disrupt and
undercut important parental involvement laws that have been enacted to
protect minors.
A teenage girl needs a parent's consent to get an aspirin at school.
The decision to kill an unborn child is life-altering, and often
results in unintended psychological and physical problems. So, I find
it unconscionable that an individual would deliberately transport a
minor across State lines for an abortion without a parent's consent.
This type of exploitation has rendered State laws toothless, and in
light of this situation, there is a strong demand for Congressional
action.
In my home State of Missouri, we have a parental consent law that
requires the involvement of a parent when a minor is seeking an
abortion. Across the State line from my district is Kansas.
In Kansas, there is a parental notification law but not a consent
law. This means that if the parent of a minor in Missouri denies
permission for that minor to have an abortion in Missouri, that same
minor--usually with the aid of a co-conspirator--can go to Kansas,
notify that parent of the intention to have an abortion, and go forward
against the will of the parent. In Illinois, it was reported that the
mother of a 14-year-old from Missouri was denied the opportunity to
even speak with her daughter as she waited for an abortion in an
Illinois clinic just over the State line.
Congress must act to prevent the evasion of parental involvement
laws. In Missouri, you can bring a civil action against any individual
that assists a minor in evading the State parental consent law, but
that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. Only a tough, Federal criminal statute
will deter individuals from transporting teenagers across state lines
in order to willfully violate the parental involvement laws of the
teenager's home State.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to support H.R. 748, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act when it was considered by the House in April
of last year. This rule gives us the opportunity to restore an
important provision that was not included in S. 403, specifically the
provision that places responsibility on the abortion provider to give a
parent or guardian 24 hours' notice of a minor's abortion decision.
I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and the Child Custody
Protection Act. It is time for Congress to take action against all
those who assist minors in circumventing a parent's right of
involvement in the most serious decision a minor can make.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a tangled web of
legal intricacies which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose
specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the
bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation.
H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for
anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for
an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification
laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection
Act, in past Congresses, and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I
say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that:
(1) The bill violates the Constitutional principles of federalism;
(2) There are no exceptions for another responsible adult family
member to accompany the minor; and
(3) The language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver
to be prosecuted.
You are probably wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I voted for the bill
even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that
parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and
well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding
the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the
case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the
household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus,
I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns
would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the
President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has
never acted on the legislation.
The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally
liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This,
Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some
cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and
in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in
person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted.
Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled
between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor
would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory
24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case
there would be no judicial bypass option.
This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have
a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each
of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial
procedures.
Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental
consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no
consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States,
``Your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``Your law is okay, but
it is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying,
``Your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to
legislate in our federalist system.
While reading over the bill, Mr. Speaker, I tried to think of what
precedent there is for this kind of law. It took a while, but the only
law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws
like this, Mr. Speaker, is not something this Congress should even
consider.
Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we don't focus more of our effort on
preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions
performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and
strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues come to the
table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Scott and
Jackson-Lee amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am in a time wrap today. We
already voted on and debated basically the same bill last year. We must
be close to an election if this Republican Congress is bringing up an
anti-choice piece of legislation that they have already passed.
While these types of bills may make good politics for some, they make
bad policy for all.
We should all be in agreement on the need to lower the numbers of
unintended pregnancies and abortions in the U.S.
While this bill purports to put the interests of minors and their
parents first, as well as reduce the number of abortions--the facts
over the last few years of the Bush Administration have demonstrated
that the numbers of abortions increased from the numbers during the
previous 8 years of policymaking under President Bill Clinton.
In fact, studies show the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year low when
President Bush took office, and has risen throughout President Bush's
first term of so-called anti-abortion policymaking.
Instead of focusing on this fact, addressing why hundreds of millions
of taxpayer dollars have been spent on abstinence only programs with
little result, and pushing programs to expand contraception, this
majority wants to criminalize aunts and cousins. It just doesn't make
any sense.
[[Page H7422]]
Fortunately, there are laudable programs that work with young people
to help ensure that they get accurate and relevant information on how
to protect themselves from pregnancy.
We should work to find common ground on real solutions to the
problems of unintended pregnancies and abortions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this mean-spirited
legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1039, the previous question is ordered
on the Senate bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of Senate 403 will be followed by 5-minute votes
on passage of H.R. 2679, motion to suspend the rules and adopt House
Resolution 723, and motion to suspend the rules and adopt House
Resolution 992.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264,
nays 153, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
YEAS--264
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--153
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Brown (OH)
Castle
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Green (WI)
Istook
Jefferson
Lewis (GA)
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Ney
Nussle
Pombo
Strickland
{time} 1800
Messrs. BUTTERFIELD, NEAL of Massachusetts, PASCRELL, Ms. LINDA T.
SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mrs. JONES of
Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________