[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10616-S10618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose cloture on the Child Custody
Protection Act, S. 403, because there are not adequate safeguards for
young women seeking abortions, particularly in cases of rape, incest,
or health of the minor.
On September 22, 1998, I voted against cloture on a similar bill. On
July 25, 2006, I voted against a similar bill.
Those bills, like the one now pending, made it a crime to take a
minor across state lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion without
parental consent or notification. I opposed that legislation because of
my concern for minor girls who have an abusive or bad relationship with
their parents, including circumstances of incest. Such a relationship
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the girl to admit to being
pregnant or to express her desire to obtain an abortion. Additionally I
am concerned with the delay this bill poses on young girls seeking
abortions in the case of rape or health risks.
Proponents of this legislation have urged me to support it on the
ground that the state judicial bypass laws provide a sufficient means
for young girls who have such a bad relationship with their parents, to
receive judicial authorization to secure an abortion without their
parents' knowledge or consent.
It has been suggested to me that there may be compelling data that
the judicial bypass procedures provide a sufficient means for such
girls' interests to be protected. On the current state of the record,
however, I believe that the judicial bypass procedures are not
adequate, so I do not believe that a Federal crime should be legislated
for those who take minor girls across state lines to secure an
abortion.
To those who have urged me to support the legislation and have asked
me to review such data, I have replied that I would be willing to study
any such information. As noted, on this date of the record, I could not
support legislating a Federal crime on this issue.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot support the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. First, I object to the decision to
bring this bill directly to the floor, circumventing the
[[Page S10617]]
Senate's committee process, and to prevent Senators from offering
amendments. This bill contains provisions that have never been debated
in the Senate not in committee, and not on the floor. Part of the bill
we are considering today consists of the Child Custody Protection Act,
which did pass the Senate earlier this year although without being
considered in committee. But this bill also contains a number of
additional troubling provisions that should go through the committee
process. At a minimum, Senators should have an opportunity to offer
amendments to legislation that could have such a serious impact on
young women's lives.
I voted against the Child Custody Protection Act when it came before
the Senate in July because the bill is an overreach of federal power
that comes at the expense of the health and safety of young women. The
notion that one state may not impose its laws outside its territorial
boundaries is a core federalist principle, and I believe this bill
might very well violate the Constitution. States should retain their
right to enact and implement appropriate policies within their
territorial boundaries. The Child Custody Protection Act would preempt
these rights by allowing the laws of certain states to essentially
trump the laws in other states.
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, in addition to
containing the language of the Child Custody Protection Act, includes a
number of other, even more problematic, provisions. It would implement
onerous new Federal notification and consent requirements in states
whose existing state laws do not meet the bill's standards, raising
serious federalism concerns, and would subject providers to criminal
penalties for failing to comply. In addition, these requirements would
vary for teens and providers according to the state in which the minor
lives and the state to which she travels, making them extremely
difficult to comply with. Not only that, but the new federal
requirements do not include a judicial bypass procedure, and do not
have an adequate health exception.
In an ideal world, all young women who face this difficult decision
would be able to turn to their parents. But we do not live in an ideal
world, and the reality is that there are young women who feel they
cannot turn to a parent out of fear of physical abuse or mental abuse,
getting kicked out of the house, or worse. This bill would deny these
young women the ability to turn to another trusted adult for help.
Our focus in the Senate should be on ensuring that unintended
pregnancies do not happen in the first place. For these reasons, I
intend to continue my work in the Senate to ensure that all women have
access to the best information and reproductive health services
available. If we do that, abortions will become even more rare, as well
as staying safe and legal.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Child Custody
Protection Act, which will protect the rights of our Nation's parents
and their children's well-being.
I was very pleased with the work of this body when the Child Custody
Protection Act came before the Senate in July. Through the hard work of
my colleagues, I believe we were able to come up with an even stronger
bill designed to protect our young daughters.
The only successful amendment offered to the Child Custody Protection
Act contained two important clarifying provisions dealing with parents
who commit incest.
Senator Boxer and I worked together to ensure that parents who have
committed the heinous act of incest are unable to sue, and therefore
profit from, someone else who has transported their minor across State
lines for an abortion.
The Ensign-Boxer amendment also added a new provision making it
Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to transport their
victim across State lines for an abortion.
Recognizing the importance of preserving parent's rights, the Senate
passed the Child Custody Protection Act by a vote of 65 to 34.
The support of 14 Democrats reflects the reality that this not an
issue divided on pro-life or pro-choice lines.
There is broad and consistent support to preserve the rights of
parents.
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 or medical procedures, like
abortion.
Forty-five States have adopted some form of parental notification or
consent law, proving their widespread support for protecting the rights
of parents.
The people that care the most for the child should be involved in
these kinds of health care decisions and, if there is aftercare needed,
be fully informed in order to care for their young daughter.
Additionally, a huge majority support parental consent laws. In fact,
most polls show that consent is favored by almost 80 percent of
Americans.
These numbers do not lie; the American people agree that parents
deserve the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions.
The bill before us today makes it a Federal offense to knowingly
transport a minor across a State line, for the purposes 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.
The purpose of the Child Custody Protection Act is to prevent people,
including abusive boyfriends and predatory older males who may have
committed rape, from pressuring young girls into having secret
abortions without their parents consent.
The bill also requires an abortionist to give 24 hours' notice to a
parent of the minor from another State before performing the abortion.
Several exceptions are made, including exceptions related to parental
abuse and the life and bodily health of the mother.
Should the abortionist fail to do so, they could face a fine or jail
time.
We are reminded how important parental notification is when we hear
the story of Marcia Carroll and her daughter, from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Carroll's daughter was, without her mother's knowledge, pressured
by her boyfriend's stepfather to take a train and cross State lines and
have an abortion she didn't want to have and which she now regrets and
seeks continual counseling for.
The abortion provider who performed an abortion on Mrs. Carroll's
daughter had a long history of abusing his patients.
Mrs. Carroll should have been given an opportunity to learn about the
history of her child's doctor, who had been professionally disciplined
multiple times for having sex with a patient in his office, for
performing improper rectal and breast exams on two others, and for
indiscriminately prescribing controlled dangerous substances.
The parents of America should be given the chance to make sure their
children's doctors are not potential sexual abusers and controlled
substance pushers, and this legislation would give them that chance.
As Mrs. Carroll testified, ``I felt safe when [the police] told me my
daughter had to be . . . of age in the State of Pennsylvania to have an
abortion without parental consent . . . It never occurred to me that I
would need to check the laws of other States around me.
I thought as a resident of the State of Pennsylvania that she was
protected by Pennsylvania State laws. Boy, was I ever wrong.''
Dr. Bruce A. Lucero, an abortion provider, has supported this
legislation because ``patients who receive abortions at out-of-state
clinics frequently do not return for follow-up care, which can lead to
dangerous complications.''
Sure enough, the abortion provider who performed an abortion on Mrs.
Carroll's daughter failed to schedule a followup visit with her to help
ensure there were no postabortion complications.
Speaking as the father of three young children, including a daughter,
I understand how difficult the challenges 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
[[Page S10618]]
lines, in direct disobedience of State laws, for the purpose of
undergoing a life-altering abortion.
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 the child.
Parental notification serves another vital purpose--ensuring
increased protection against sexual exploitation of minors by adult
men.
All too often, our young girls are the victims of the 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.
In fact, in a survey of 1500 unmarried minors having abortions
without their parents' knowledge, 89 percent said that a boyfriend was
involved in the decision.
The number goes even higher the younger the age of the minor.
Allowing secret abortions do nothing to expose these men and there
heinous conduct.
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. 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 in parents being denied the right to
know about the health decisions of their minor daughters--a fact which
the Supreme Court upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which states,
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 right of parents to have
knowledge about the health decisions of their minor daughters.
Parental permission is so important because parents are the most
intimately involved people in their children's lives.
We cannot allow another young girl's life to be irreparably damaged
because of a legal loophole that keeps parents from being involved in
one of the most major decisions their daughter may make in her life.
It is time for Congress to step up and commit to protecting our
daughters by assuring that a parent's right to be involved is
protected.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of S. 403, the
Child Custody Protection Act. This bill has strong bipartisan support
as illustrated by its vote of 65 to 34 that occurred in July.
Unfortunately, due to political maneuvers by its opponents, the
enactment of this critical legislation is being blocked.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be
considered during the 109th Congress. Why is this legislation so
important? Because despite the fact that 23 States require a minor to
receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these
important laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance
of adults who are not their parents, are being transported across State
lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We must
end this circumvention of State laws and, more importantly, the
consequences such actions have on life.
S. 403 would make it a Federal offense to help a minor cross lines
for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, unless it is needed to save
the life of the minor. Its enactment is critical, and we cannot allow
its opponents to continue to stall needlessly its progress.
Earlier this month, I joined with 40 of my colleagues in urging the
majority leader to take action to enable this legislation to continue
through the legislative process. The leader has now taken such action.
On Wednesday, a cloture motion was filed to break the opponents logjam,
and I applaud and support this action. We must do all that we can to
move this critical legislation to the President's desk.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, under rule XXII, the
clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to S. 403: a bill 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.
Bill Frist, John Ensign, Tom Coburn, Craig Thomas, Jim
DeMint, Wayne Allard, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Jim
Bunning, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Johnny Isakson,
John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo,
John Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the amendment of the House to S. 403, the Child
Custody Protection Act, shall be brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Kennedy
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 57; the nays
are 42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________