[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 35 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1342-H1348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PRO-LIFE WOMEN IN HISTORY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I am here today, joined by my good colleague from the other side of 
the aisle, Mrs. Dahlkemper from Pennsylvania.
  Today, we really want to focus this next hour on women in history 
because

[[Page H1343]]

this is the month for women in history. Toward that end, we really want 
to focus on women in history who were pro-life.
  I would like to begin by talking about the fact that National Women's 
History Month traces its origins back to 1911, to the first observance 
of International Women's Day. Since that year, countries around the 
world have devoted each March 8 to celebrate the economic, political, 
and social achievements of women, and they have recognized the many 
obstacles women have had to overcome.
  In the United States, this day is celebrated as part of National 
Women's History Month, first established in 1987 by Congress. A similar 
resolution is approved with bipartisan support in the House and Senate 
each year, therein recognizing women here in the United States and 
around the world. Though, today, as I said, we are going to focus on 
pro-life women in history. I am going to start off by talking about a 
woman who began this movement in the United States way back in 1792. In 
1792, as you well know, we were just becoming the United States--
developing our Constitution, developing our institutions, our Congress, 
our Presidency, et cetera.
  There was a woman by the name of Mary Wollstonecraft. This woman, 
Mary Wollstonecraft, was very, very pro-life. She actually wrote a 
book, ``A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.'' In that, she condemned 
those who would either destroy the embryo in the womb or who would cast 
it off when born, saying, ``Nature in everything demands respect, and 
those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.'' She was 
really the first pro-life woman in the United States, and we have been 
blessed with many since then.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good colleague from 
Pennsylvania if she would like to join me in this wonderful discussion.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Well, thank you. I thank the gentlelady from Ohio 
for leading this special hour today to talk about the importance of 
women in history, particularly pro-life women.
  I am just pleased that we can work together on this issue, one of 
which I find to be of great importance. It is an issue that really is 
not defined by party, that is not defined by geography, and that is not 
defined by demographics. This is an issue which, I believe, has 
national importance, and I am proud to stand here today with my 
colleague from Ohio and with my colleagues from other areas to raise 
our voices in defense of all in this country.
  During the March for Life in January of this year, hundreds of my 
constituents from western Pennsylvania, pro-life advocates, visited my 
office in the Capitol. I spoke to a large group of Pennsylvanians who 
had traveled all day and all night. They'd marched in the cold to 
demonstrate their commitment to the unborn, and I was so impressed by 
their dedication. Overwhelmingly, it was women and young women who came 
to my office to show solidarity in our cause.
  When I go home to western Pennsylvania, where my district is 
overwhelmingly pro-life in its beliefs, I talk to mothers and 
daughters, women of all ages, who thank me for supporting life and who 
encourage me to stay strong in this fight.
  It is so important that we have women representing the pro-life 
movement both here in Washington and in our districts back home. We can 
speak to this issue, I believe, in a more personal way than can men. No 
one can dismiss us for not understanding. No one can look at me and 
say, ``You don't know what it's like.'' I have been in those shoes. At 
the age of 20, as a student in college, I found myself unmarried and 
pregnant. So I know what it means. I know what it means to choose life.
  Today, we are here because National Women's History Month and pro-
life issues do go hand in hand.
  The suffragettes who worked so hard to secure our voting rights as 
women believed in the right to life. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady 
Stanton, Alice Paul, and so many others whose names are lesser known 
believed in the sanctity of life as strongly as they believed in the 
rights of women. Women led the feminist movement, and women led the 
pro-life movement. Our voices are the loudest and the clearest for both 
of these very important causes. Contrary to what media or other 
organizations would have us believe, women can be both feminists and 
pro-life.
  The bottom line is this: Respect--respect for women in the workplace, 
women in the home, in schools, and in the voting booth--and respect for 
the rights of the unborn. The principle that motivates both the 
feminists and the pro-life movement is one and the same, which is the 
belief that people have rights and freedom.
  As pro-life women, we believe these rights and these freedoms belong 
also to the unborn. We believe they have the right to be born and the 
right to live. This is not only consistent with the legacy of the early 
advocates of women's rights, but it reinforces their beliefs in the 
rights of all Americans.
  So I am happy to stand here today with my other colleagues in 
Congress, pro-life Members, who are speaking in support of women and 
who are speaking in support of pro-life issues.
  I yield to my colleague from Ohio.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you very much to my very good friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  Right now, I would like to give as much time as needed to my very, 
very good friend from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleagues from Ohio and Pennsylvania 
for organizing this Special Order today.
  Today, we are marking National Women's History Month, and we are 
commemorating the brave and principled women who have spoken out and 
who have fought for the unborn as well as those who have spoken out for 
equal rights for women in terms of our voting. It remains more 
important than ever that women speak out on behalf of defenseless, 
unborn children, for, each year, more than 1 million of the unborn are 
aborted in America.
  I want to strongly agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania that one 
can be a feminist and that one can also be pro-life.
  Today, I am pleased to highlight how some North Carolina women are 
standing up for the unborn back in my district. Two women in particular 
come to mind today. Toni Buckler and Donna Dyer are in the midst of 
leading a 40-day-long vigil in Winston-Salem to bring an end to the 
practice of abortion. Their efforts, dubbed 40 Days of Life, are 
focused on 40 days of peaceful prayer, of fasting, and of community 
outreach on the issue of abortion.
  One of the most important and visible parts of their 40 Days of Life 
effort is the prayer vigil that is held outside the local Planned 
Parenthood facility in Winston-Salem. Every day between February 17 and 
March 28, they are bringing together concerned pro-life citizens to 
take a stand for the cause of life.

  What is truly amazing about this effort is that it does not stand 
alone. Hundreds of other cities in 45 States have similar 40 Days of 
Life vigils, which seek to raise awareness about the scourge of 
abortion and to bring an end to abortion in America.
  It is an honor to represent such committed pro-life women as Toni and 
Donna. Their efforts echo the voices of early women's rights leaders 
like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who stood up for 
women and for the unborn.
  I want to thank all of the pro-life women who are participating in 
the Winston-Salem 40 Days of Life vigil. I commend them for their 
dedication to the pro-life cause.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you so much.
  At this time, I will yield as much time as he may consume to my good 
friend from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank the gentlelady, Mrs. Schmidt, for giving 
me the opportunity to speak on this subject.
  Of course, for those who are in the audience, in the gallery, the 
question is probably, What does this guy know about National Women's 
History Month? Certainly, what does he know about women in general?
  Well, what I can tell you is that a very important woman in my life 
gave me life, itself--my mother. She passed away many years ago, but, 
obviously, she is someone I can never forget. I have a wife of almost 
32 years, and I also have two daughters, one of whom has gifted to me 
two grandsons. So I think I know something about the appreciation of 
women when it comes to

[[Page H1344]]

National Women's History Month. Let me just mention about abortion and 
about my pro-life stance.
  Mr. Speaker, I really oppose abortion for four reasons. Number one, I 
am a Christian. I believe that only God can give or can take away 
innocent life. That is within his prerogative and within his power and 
his only.
  Number two, as a physician, practicing for over 30 years, I believe 
in the protection of life. I don't see any way that abortion could be 
considered health care. Health care and abortion are totally different 
things.
  Number three, as a scientist, I understand that, at the moment of 
conception, the unique DNA combination that results remains unique into 
history. That unique person can never be replicated by anyone else.
  Number four, as a person, I believe that the only way that one can 
accept abortion is through something we call dehumanization. What do I 
mean by that? We human beings have the distinct ability to think of 
other human beings in a less than human way. What are some examples of 
this? Well, oftentimes, those who were pro-slavery gave certain 
explanations which would suggest that slaves were somehow less than 
human beings. Certainly, during the pre-World War II period and during 
World War II, we know that the Nazis used a similar characterization in 
order to justify what they did to the Jewish people and to many others.
  I think that we have to deal with that today, that to accept taking 
innocent life, even if it is preborn, requires dehumanization, and I 
think we need to come to that recognition.

                              {time}  1415

  If we accept that the unborn child is indeed a human, then I don't 
see any way we can justify taking that innocent life.
  I also stand today, Mr. Speaker, to just briefly mention that I think 
abortion is exploitive of women. There are a lot of reasons for this, 
and I will just speak to the area of health care.
  Today, there are more than 3,000 American mothers who are victimized 
by a procedure, abortion, that ends the lives of small children, the 
small children they carry. The harm to women is real and the physical 
ramifications are significant.
  As a physician, I can tell you that women who have abortions are more 
likely to experience more infertility, ectopic pregnancies, 
stillbirths, miscarriages, and premature births than other women who 
have not had abortions.
  Studies have shown that women having had abortions are 3.5 times more 
likely to die in the following year; six times more likely to die of 
suicide; 7 to 15-fold more likely to have placenta previa in a 
subsequent pregnancy, which is a life-threatening condition for the 
mother and the baby, and which increases, of course, the chance of 
death or stillbirth; and twice as likely to have preterm or postterm 
deliveries--and pre-term delivery increases the risk of neonatal death 
and certainly handicaps.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentlelady giving me 
an opportunity to speak on this subject. I think that anytime we think 
about women, we have to think about moms, and anytime we think about 
moms, we have to think about children, and those children, of course, 
are children, in my opinion, from the moment of conception. That is 
when life begins. And anything that disrupts that deliberately that is 
not of the nature of God is indeed the taking of innocent life and is 
not health care.
  So I thank the gentlelady, and appreciate the time you have given me 
today.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to refrain from 
references to occupants of the gallery.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
  To continue with Women's History Month and to focus on pro-life 
women, I want you to imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it was like to be an 
American woman in the 1700s and 1800s.
  It surprises me to have to say this, but at that time women could not 
vote, we could not hold property, we could not inherit property if we 
were married, we could not control our own money or sit on a jury or 
testify on our own behalf. We needed somebody to testify for us if we 
were involved in a criminal case. We couldn't assemble or speak freely. 
We couldn't keep our children if we were divorced, and sometimes even 
when we were widowed. There was no such thing as marital rape, and no 
woman had ever graduated from college.
  Mr. Speaker, that almost sounds likes some Third World countries 
today, and yet that is the kind of an environment women faced in the 
1700s and 1800s. Once women realized that we needed to have our rights 
reserved in the Constitution, other feminists stepped forward.
  One of those feminists was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was a pretty 
moxie woman, because at the time when women were pregnant--and you 
couldn't even say the term ``pregnant,'' I am not even you could say 
the term ``with child''--they were supposed to stay at home and not be 
seen until the child was born.
  What did Elizabeth Cady Stanton do? She shocked Victorian society, 
because she paraded through the streets showing the baby inside of her. 
And people were aghast. But people were also surprised at the voice of 
the message that she was carrying, because, you see, at the time of the 
feminist movement as we know it today with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and 
Susan B. Anthony, they were fighting for all people's rights; not just 
the right of women, but the right of the African American, man and 
woman, and also the right of the child, African American and white. 
They were fighting for everyone.
  It was Elizabeth Cady Stanton who I think was the most shocking of 
all, because what she did was she showed her feminism on the streets. 
One of the things that she said was, ``When we consider that women are 
treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our 
children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.''
  Now, think about that: ``When we consider that women are treated as 
property''--I think you could probably put in there the African 
American as well--``it is degrading to women that we should treat our 
children''--at that time the African American slave child as well--"as 
property to be disposed of as we see fit.''
  This was a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in 
Howe's diary at Harvard University library. So these are a pro-life 
feminist's words.
  Mr. Speaker, her statue is in the hall just beyond these doors, and 
yet when I was a child in school, I never heard she was pro-life. I 
knew she was pro-woman and pro-freedom for all mankind, but nobody ever 
said she was also protecting the unborn. And yet she was.
  But it wasn't just Elizabeth Cady Stanton that was holding these 
views. It was also her good friend, Susan B. Anthony. Susan B. Anthony, 
who also wrote, ``Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, 
or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is 
awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in 
life, it will burden her soul in death.''
  Mr. Speaker, these words were written over 100 years ago. I want to 
repeat them. ``Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or 
a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is 
awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in 
life, it will burden her soul in death.''
  Mr. Speaker, we hear that sentiment today from women who have had 
abortions and come around and realized that this was the wrong decision 
for them, and that they wish they hadn't made that decision, that they 
wish they could have made the decision for life.
  But she wasn't the only person, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Susan B. 
Anthony, that felt like this. I bet most people in Congress don't know, 
Mr. Speaker, but we actually had a female candidate at the time of the 
feminist movement in the 1800s, and her name was Victoria Woodhull. She 
was the first female candidate for President.
  December 24, 1870, this was the first female President candidate, a 
strong opponent of abortion. She said, ``The rights of children as 
individuals begin while they remain the fetus.''
  Think about that. First off, in 1870, long before women had the right 
to

[[Page H1345]]

vote, the right to have a divorce, the right to own property, the right 
to represent themselves in court, this courageous woman ran for 
President. Now, we know she didn't get very far, but criminy, Mr. 
Speaker, she certainly had a voice, and it is a voice that I think is a 
shame that history doesn't highlight, regardless of her message on 
abortion. Again, as a history major, I never knew that this woman ran 
for as a history major, I never knew that this woman ran for President 
in the 1870s, Mr. Speaker, and I will bet most of our colleagues didn't 
know that either.

  But it wasn't just Victoria Woodhull that talked abortion. It was 
also someone by the name of Alice Paul. Alice Paul, another person that 
was part of the Equal Rights Amendment, stated in 1923 that ``abortion 
is the ultimate exploitation of women.'' That was Alice Paul. She was 
the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment and opposed the later 
version of the ERA because it promoted abortion.
  But before I forget, I also want to talk about Sarah Norton. Sarah 
Norton first challenged Cornell University to admit women. Think about 
that: Women couldn't go to college. Sarah Norton, right out there 
fighting to go to college, just as a man, also pondered whether there 
would ever come a time when the right of the unborn to be born would 
not be denied or interfered with.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, we have to think about the way women were 
treated back then and why they came to this conclusion. Again, as I 
said a moment ago, they had no rights. They were very much like the 
slaves of that time. They had no voice, no right in court, no real 
rights at home. If they were raped, they had no way to address the 
rape. And if they found themselves in a situation where they had a 
child as an accident, there was no other choice but to either carry it 
and be like Hester Prynne in ``The Scarlet Letter'' or to have an 
abortion. And many times the people they were involved with didn't want 
society to know that they were the father of that child, and so they 
would force these women into a situation to have an abortion.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, there were no rights for women at the time. They 
couldn't go to court and say, ``my neighbor raped me'' or ``I had an 
affair with a neighbor, he was a married man,'' kind of like Hester 
Prynne in ``The Scarlet Letter.'' They had no rights. But they could be 
forced into situations that they disagreed with.
  I think that is why these women who were so much at the forefront of 
the feminist movement were also at the forefront in talking about the 
right of life for all people.
  What amazes me in all of this struggle is that up until the 1970s, 
people really didn't believe that abortion should be legal in the 
United States. There was a lot of controversy going on at the time, and 
I think I became involved in this movement because where I come from in 
Cincinnati, Ohio, a piece of the Right to Life movement in the Nation 
was actually born in my district, or actually not my district, but the 
First Congressional District, the district that borders mine.
  It was with folks like Barbara and Jack Willke and folks like my 
parents, who are from my district, that really realized that abortion 
could become the law of the land, and they wanted to prevent that. So 
they became very proactive at the State level. They went to the State 
legislature and talked with the legislators, telling them if they were 
going to consider having abortion legal in Ohio, that was the wrong 
thing to do.
  They weren't unique to Ohio or unique to Cincinnati. This was really 
going on all throughout the United States, these little pockets of 
discontent about the issue of abortion, and they were beginning to 
weave together into a national movement.
  But it is Barbara Willke who said to her husband Jack, a physician, 
``You know, Jack, the Constitution gives everybody the right to life, 
including the unborn child.'' And he looked at her and he said, 
``Barbara, that will be the name of our movement.''
  Well, we know that that name didn't just stay in Ohio, but there is 
also the National Right to Life Movement, and Barbara and Jack Willke 
have been at the forefront of this movement since its inception in the 
early 1970s. Jack Willke has served not only on the board of the 
Greater Cincinnati Right to Life, but he has also been on the board of 
the National Right to Life, serving as its president. Currently today 
he is with the Life Issues Institute, but he and Barbara continue to be 
on the forefront of abortion.
  I am going to ask those wonderful folks if they could bring those two 
posters over for me.
  Now, back in the 1970s, when the ERA movement was going around, 
people wanted to have an additional amendment to the Constitution 
stating in full force that women were equal and should have equal 
protections, but the problem with the movement was that they also 
wanted an equal protection for abortion.

                              {time}  1430

  At that time, the public really started to figure out where they were 
on that issue: Did they believe in abortion or not believe in abortion? 
And toward that end, there were a lot of mixed reviews. People 
certainly didn't want to have women suffer from back-alley abortions, 
but at the same time the question was: Should they have an abortion 
after all? And before the States could figure it out on their own, the 
Supreme Court, in 1973, handed down the decision of Roe v. Wade. And we 
all know what that said: that women have the right to an abortion.
  Well, folks like Barbara and Jack Willke and my parents and myself 
were aghast because we really understood that life begins at its 
inception. And you can't question life at its inception, because if you 
do, you compromise life throughout history. So we began to work very, 
very hard to end it.
  What I really think is interesting is that while in the beginning of 
the seventies and eighties it appeared that women were on the edge of 
believing that women should have abortion rights, today the trend is 
changing. I have to digress a minute because the pro-choice women have 
been very smart on this. In fact, it was in the late eighties, early 
nineties, that they realized with ultrasounds that women were 
recognizing that that baby inside of their womb really was alive and 
breathing and moving and had a little personality. And so they started 
to wane back on whether they agreed women should have the right to an 
abortion or not. And so they made a language change. What they said 
was, instead of calling it pro-life or pro-abortion, anti-abortion or 
pro-abortion, they changed the name to pro-life or pro-choice.
  Now the pro-choice, pro-abortion folks were very smart in that 
marketing approach because we as a society believe in choices, Mr. 
Speaker. We go to the grocery store--in my town, it would be Kroger, 
Meijers, Biggs, or Super Value--and you have an array of deli meats, 
you have an array of cheeses, you have an array of fruits and 
vegetables, and just anything that you're willing to pay for. In fact, 
in some of these stores you can even buy furniture. We love choice. How 
many restaurants offer a salad bar where you can get all kinds of 
salad? We like choice. You go to a department store and how many kinds 
of shirts and shoes and ties and sweaters can we buy? We like choice.
  And so it was a very smart marketing strategy because at the time 
when women were starting to hesitate on whether women should have the 
right to an abortion because of the ultrasound, the pro-choice tag made 
them feel that yes, indeed, maybe women should have that right.
  But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, because as technology 
has come full forward and as we've had 3D with technology, women 
stepped back a few years ago--back about 10 years ago--with ultrasounds 
that we have today and recognized that even as a child is at the age of 
2 weeks, it begins to appear to look like a child. And they started to 
hesitate on whether abortion should be legalized and women should have 
that right.
  And if you look at this chart, what you see is that this was a Gallup 
Poll. A 2009 Gallup Poll. The majority of Americans--this was the first 
time, Mr. Speaker--a majority of Americans, 51 percent, consider 
themselves to be pro-life over the terminology pro-choice. So this 
isn't pro-abortion versus anti-abortion. This is pro-life over pro-
choice, the pro-abortion marketing verbiage.
  What we see is that in 2001, 40 percent believed in pro-life. Forty-
nine percent

[[Page H1346]]

believed in pro-choice. Back in 2005, it was 42 to 52. In 2006, 45 to 
47. We're tightening up. In 2007, 42 to 51. In 2008, 46 to 48. In 2009, 
43 to 50. And in 2009, it has finally come full circle to where the 
pro-lifers are at 49 and the pro-choicers are at 44.
  So we have seen this very narrow trend all the way through, finally 
eclipsing just about a year ago. And I think it's because women 
especially, but men as well, realize that that baby in the womb is 
actually a human being. And that human being deserves to have the right 
to life.
  The other interesting thing that I think we need to talk about as we 
focus on women in history is that women really oppose the use of 
Federal funds for abortion. Even if they're pro-choice women, they just 
don't think Federal funds should be used for abortion.
  Now, the late Henry Hyde--Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether you had a 
chance to serve with Henry Hyde. I did have the luxury to serve with 
the gentleman from Illinois. But it was Henry Hyde after Roe v. Wade 
became the law of the land that decided that maybe we shouldn't have 
Federal funding for abortion. And so in the appropriation bill he put 
in an amendment, which we still continue to use today, that said there 
shall be no Federal funding for abortion, period. And this has been the 
law of the land for the last 30 years.
  And when you ask folks today--now this was a Quinnipiac poll, 
December 2009, and this was for women: Do you support or oppose 
allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care 
reform bill, well, 25 percent support it, 70 percent oppose it, and 
folks that weren't sure of the answer were about 5 percent.
  So I really think that, Mr. Speaker, there's a real clear message 
here that women, whether they're pro-choice or pro-life, do not believe 
that we should have Federal funding for abortion. They just don't think 
that's a smart way of using taxpayer dollars. I have to agree because, 
Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing the bill of the moment--and the 
bill of the moment is health care, it's the bill that touches 
everyone's mind. It's a bill that is something that will be a game-
changer in the United States, if passed.
  One of the things that is in that bill is the public funding of 
abortion. From what I have gleaned, there will be a dollar of every 
premium paid to women's reproductive health that will allow for all 
kinds of things for women, including abortions. I think that when you 
look at the polling and you see that 70 percent of women oppose Federal 
funding of abortion, I think we should listen to the will of the 
people. And whatever we do on this health care bill, at least let's 
listen to the women of today. Because as we look at women in history, 
we really have to recognize that we do have a choice today.
  My good friend, Dr. Roe, just came. Before I give Dr. Roe a chance to 
speak on this, I want to mention that in women in history we've come a 
long way, but we still have a long way to go. And when you think about 
the first woman to try to run for President way back in 1870, I think 
it's ironic that the first woman to serve in this House was in 1917. 
Her name was Jeannette Rankin. This was 2 years before women got the 
right to vote. Yet, today in the House there's about 275 women in total 
that have ever served here, Mr. Speaker.
  We have a lot of pro-choice women, we have got pro-life, we have got 
some that probably haven't made up their mind. But we have really got a 
long way to go when you think of the thousands of men that have served 
here. I think that's why it's so important, as we debate this issue of 
health care, to listen to women, because it is women that are saying, 
Wait a minute, not with my tax dollar.
  Right now I've been joined by my good friend from Tennessee. I will 
give you as much time as you need, sir.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Thank you very much for holding this Special 
Order on health care and the life issue. As I was walking over here, I 
thought back to my medical school years and how this issue of abortion 
ever came up. I followed it from the time I was a medical student, when 
abortion was illegal in this country, until it was legalized. At that 
time, pregnancy was basically a mystery. It was described as tissue. 
I've heard of a human being described in a lot of different ways.
  But as ultrasound came along and we were able to view noninvasively 
inside the woman's uterus to see what was actually going on, an 
astonishing thing happened. I will tell you, after 30-plus years of 
practicing medicine, it will make your adrenaline flow to look at a 
baby and watch it grow from the time you see a flicker of a heart beat. 
We can see that around 28 days post-conception. I can remember the 
first time to this day. It's been over 30 years since I saw that. And 
to see that within weeks develop into a little person at around 12 
weeks. And certainly now with the new 3D ultrasounds, it is amazing 
what you can see.
  This is a person there. You watch them move, you watch them breathe, 
you watch their eyes blink, and so on. They're people. If you have any 
question about what's in the uterus, simply look at an ultrasound and 
there will be no doubt in your mind that it is a person there. I know 
that in our area certainly a higher percentage than even 70 percent 
oppose abortion funding using their tax dollars to end life. That's 
exactly what it is. It's certainly illegal in this country now. But I 
think the pendulum is swinging. We have a very limited amount of 
resources for health care in this country. I think we will talk about 
certainly the need for reform. But abortion is not health care. It is 
not. And we should not be using our tax dollars, as precious as they 
are, to provide care.
  Let me just give you an example of what we're trying to do in our 
State of Tennessee right now. This year, because of the budget crunch, 
we're limiting our State health insurance plan; and Medicaid, or 
TennCare in our case, is limiting doctor visits to eight per year. So 
you as a patient, if you were a patient of mine in Tennessee and you 
had Tennessee Medicaid, you can only come see me, and that's all the 
State will pay for, no matter what your condition is. Also, we will 
only pay $10,000 per year, no matter how many hospitalizations. That's 
all you're going to get paid. So those costs are shifted.
  Right now, in Tennessee, with our Medicaid system, we're rationing 
care. What we should be doing before we massively expand the system is 
to adequately fund what we currently have. Certainly, funding abortion, 
not only is it just the public doesn't want it, it's the wrong policy. 
So I think the current bill that currently has this language in there 
should not be passed certainly in this body.
  I yield back.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank you. I have just been joined my good friend 
from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann. Would you like to add to the 
conversation?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I'd love to. Thank you so much. I appreciate the 
gentlelady from Ohio for inviting me. I also want to honor her for her 
service as the head of the Pro-Life Women's Caucus here in the United 
States Congress. We benefit greatly from your leadership, and we 
appreciate all that you do.
  This is the first issue that all of us have to deal with, the issue 
of life, going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. If 
you look at the Declaration, the inalienable rights, the rights that no 
government can give, that no government can take away, that were given 
to each one of us, a very personal right by our Creator, the first one 
is life. And that's why this issue is central in every debate that we 
have--how will we as an American government and society deal with 
vouchsafing life. Because in the Declaration it goes on to say that 
governments were instituted to secure the inalienable right of life. 
That's why we're here--to make sure that life is a value that we uphold 
and that we save.
  I appreciate so much the chart that the gentlelady has put up to 
demonstrate that 70 percent of Americans oppose funding for abortions. 
That's what we're going to see in this health care bill going forward. 
I'm sure my colleague, Dr. Roe, had addressed that very well: that 
Americans don't want to have their tax dollars pay for other people's 
abortions and have their consciences violated. That's why we have seen 
the Catholic bishops all across the country so heavily involved in this 
health care debate, because they know what will happen.
  The Alan Gutmaker Institute tells us that there will be more 
abortions if we have government-subsidized abortions. As a matter of 
fact, there will probably

[[Page H1347]]

be a good 30 percent increase in the number of abortions that we 
currently have today. That wouldn't be good for the women of America, 
abortion-minded women, and it certainly wouldn't be good for the next 
generation.

                              {time}  1445

  You know, in so many countries across the world today, whether it's 
Russia or in Eastern Europe or Western Europe, certainly Italy--Greece 
has a population replacement rate of 1.3--all of those nations are not 
replacing themselves. There is a very high level of abortion that is 
occurring in those nations. We don't want to see that here in the 
United States. We are at replacement, but our population levels could 
fall. It's not good when a Nation's population levels fall below 
replacement. The countries now, like Russia and in Western Europe, are 
dealing with that fact.
  It's also a vital interest, just for the sake of abortion-minded 
women, that they have alternatives. All too often what we see are women 
that are put into a position that they don't want to be in by their 
parents, by pressuring boyfriends, to tell them, Have an abortion 
because it will cost me money. It will cost me embarrassment. But it's 
the woman who pays the price. The woman pays the price emotionally.
  I have just looked at some figures that said that women who have an 
abortion have a higher risk of death and are six times more likely to 
commit suicide. That's such a terrible, horrible outcome for women. 
There are things that we can do for women who find themselves in an 
unplanned pregnancy.
  We have pro-life centers all across the Nation that would love to 
help women, whether it's with free pregnancy tests, free ultrasound 
tests where they can see their unborn baby alive, moving within their 
womb. And then there is also help, whether it comes from free clothing 
during the pregnancy, free help with baby supplies once the baby comes.
  If a mother chooses that she would like to have her baby adopted, 
there are services that are available that are free, open to women to 
help them with the adoption, and situations where women can actually 
help and choose the family that her baby will be raised in. There are 
great options for life. My husband and I have been involved in foster 
care, helping children as well who are in less than ideal 
circumstances.
  I thank Dr. Roe for all the very strong work that he's done with the 
pro-life movement, and also my colleague Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you.
  You know, one of the things that I'm proud of is the fact that it's 
not just conservative women that have been at the forefront of this 
debate. As we all know, this debate, as I said before, began in 1792, 
and when Mrs. Wollstonecraft was the first pro-life woman, she really 
wasn't that conservative. She was very, very radical.
  One of the things I forgot to mention was that her name may be 
unknown, but her daughter's name is not. You see, if you have ever read 
the book Frankenstein, her daughter Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote 
it. And this lovely little girl never even really got a chance to know 
her wonderful mother because her mother died giving birth to her.
  But it was women like Mrs. Mary Wollstonecraft; it was women like 
Lucretia Mott; it was women like Susan B. Anthony; it was women like 
Cady Stanton who really brought this to the attention of America over 
100 years ago. And even today, we have women from all over the country 
making a difference on this issue.
  There is a group of women called Feminists for Life, and they've got 
some pretty liberal thoughts on other social issues in America, but 
they're really dead on on this issue. I had a chance to meet with them 
the other day, and Serrin Foster is one of the leaders in that. She 
wrote a paper that she gave to Wellesley College on March 3, 2004, that 
talks about the feminist case against abortion, and that's really where 
I got a lot of my literature. It's amazing what she talks about in here 
and how women throughout society who have had abortions, what social 
ills tend to fall to them, just as my good colleague from Minnesota 
brought up. The depression, the anger, the suicide rate. There's even 
talk that there could be some physical harm that could happen with 
abortion.
  And I don't know if my good friend Tennessee knows anything about 
that, being the doctor that he is, but are there any physical risks to 
abortion?
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Oh, certainly, there are. Again, thank you for 
having this conversation, because what you're doing today is that you 
and Michele are speaking for the unborn. They cannot speak for 
themselves, so you're here on the floor of the House speaking for them.
  Yes. I mean, throughout my career, I remember a case that I had--and 
I won't obviously disclose anything other than just a case I had in 
over a 30-year career--of a patient that I had known for years. She 
came in one day and had tears in her eyes. This was a woman in her 
fifties now. And she told me, she said, I have to tell you something. I 
had known her for a long time very well, even as a friend I had known 
her. And she told me, I had an abortion years ago, and I have got to 
share this.
  Many of the problems I traced back through the 20 years, 25 years I 
cared for her were directly related to that abortion and the 
psychological impact that it had on her and her life. And we had a long 
talk that day, just as a friend to a friend. I hope she left there that 
day and could go on and continue her life.
  So many women won't share things that are very negative--or people, 
not just women, but men and women both--a very negative part of their 
life that they're not very happy about and later realize it was a very 
bad decision. What we're trying to do here today is to prevent women 
from suffering that psychological damage.
  And the other thing that Congresswoman Bachmann just brought up a 
minute ago was adoption. As an OB/GYN doctor--that's what I do. I have 
delivered almost 5,000 babies. I can assure you, I can find hundreds of 
babies a home right now in one town. I can't tell you how many friends 
of mine that have gone to Eastern Europe, to Russia, and to China to 
adopt babies. And those are very lucky children who get to come and 
live with these families.
  But why are we doing that when we have babies right here in America 
that you can adopt? And I will assure you that it would be no cost to 
the families. Those medical costs will be cared for by these families 
who desperately need and want children. And what you brought out about 
a life that is lost, you never have the opportunity to find out what 
that person could and would be, boy or girl. Maybe they will be a 
Congressman or a President or a doctor or someone who discovers a cure 
for----
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Or a Heisman Trophy winner.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Exactly. Or a Heisman Trophy winner. And even 
though he is from the University of Florida, and I am from Tennessee, I 
have to brag about that young man, that great young person. But those 
are the things that I think we have to talk about.
  And the other thing that you hear discussed a lot, Congresswoman 
Schmidt, is that you will hear about third trimester abortions. It's 
about the life of the mother. And I have to say this right now, there 
are no medical indications whatsoever for that procedure, a third 
trimester termination of life. There are none. I will be willing to sit 
and debate with over 30 years of experience to tell you there's only 
one reason for that procedure, and that is to kill the baby. That's the 
only reason. And if anyone wants to debate that, I will be glad to do 
it here on this House floor or in a medical setting. But I want to make 
that a part of the Record today. We, again, are here today to advocate 
not only for the unborn but for the mother who bears the problem, the 
brunt of what happens to her.

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. And I think it's interesting that as we continue to 
debate this since Roe v. Wade, sometimes the media inadvertently sends 
a pro-life message. There was a movie a few years ago which captured 
Hollywood's attention, and it was called ``Juno.'' It was about a young 
girl and a young guy, high school age, and she found herself pregnant. 
I remember the scene vividly in the movie where she was going to go to 
have an abortion, and her friend was standing outside the

[[Page H1348]]

abortion clinic with a sign. And she said, ``What are you going to do, 
Juno?'' and she kind of sloughed her off. Her friend screamed, ``It's 
got fingernails.''
  So when Juno goes in and she fills out the paperwork, she hears 
somebody wrapping their fingernails, somebody filing them, somebody 
chewing on them. And what does she do? She leaves. The end of the 
story, we know the outcome, she finds a wonderful woman who wanted a 
child, wanted to be a mother, and she gives that child to a loving arm.
  Now, I know that sounds like a Hollywood fantasy, except I have 
someone very close to me who worked with me on a daily basis, and 11 
years ago, he and his current wife, the lady he married, had a Juno 
experience, and yet today, they are a loving family. They had their own 
child, and they're doing just fine. I got to meet his birth daughter, 
and she is a beautiful young lady. Who knows in another 10 years or 20 
years what she will aspire to. Maybe to just be the greatest mother of 
all or maybe be the next President of the United States. But he and his 
wife made that decision.
  And so when I saw ``Juno'' and knowing his story, I thought, This is 
real. And yet Hollywood, for whatever reason, didn't see the power in 
the message. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe this country is recognizing 
that every life is precious, and I think what is equally compelling is 
the fact that last year in the Presidential debate, the issue of 
abortion took center stage, and it took center stage because a little 
unknown Governor from Alaska was suddenly thrust into the limelight and 
could have been the Vice President of the United States. And with her 
came a family, and in that family came their last child, and their last 
child has some issues. And most cases in the United States when parents 
are met after an ultrasound where indications say that your child will 
have a mental handicap, a mental issue, they are given the opportunity 
to abort the child. I think the numbers are--Doctor, am I correct?--
about 80 percent do have an abortion when they believe that they're 
going to have a child that will not have what society deems as a 
``normal life.'' And yet she had Trig, and Trig has become the face of 
life.
  I think it's interesting that as history continues to develop, that 
this wonderful woman, Sarah Palin, continues to be at the forefront of 
the media, and her child is right there. And together, that family is 
the face of life. And she is, I think, our most current and prominent 
member of women's history. Yet again, another woman who was pro-life.
  I was hoping my good friend Mrs. Dahlkemper could get back. She had 
to go to a hearing. But I want to say that--is she here? Oh, good. Mrs. 
Dahlkemper just came back.
  Mrs. Dahlkemper, my good friend from Pennsylvania, I want to give you 
the opportunity to close this wonderful hour and to thank you for your 
participation and all that you do for the cause.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Well, thank you. And again, thank you to my 
colleague Mrs. Schmidt from Ohio, who has been a good friend and is 
obviously a defender of women's rights and a defender of the rights of 
the unborn. And to all those who have joined us here this afternoon as 
we have had this special hour, as we recognize Women's History Month 
and we recognize the women that fought for our right to vote, for our 
right to serve our country as so many of us are now; although, 
unfortunately, still only 17 percent of Congress. Those women also 
fought for the right of the unborn, and I think it's important that we 
remember that as we remember them and what they do for us.
  As I was on a plane flying down here yesterday, I was sitting next to 
a woman who was from my hometown, and we were talking about many 
different things. And as we got up to leave the plane, in front of us 
sat her daughter and her granddaughter and her granddaughter with Down 
syndrome. She was telling me how it was only her granddaughter's second 
time to fly on a plane. One of the things that she expressed to me is 
that she is afraid that someday there will no longer be Down syndrome 
children in our world, and yet they are so loving and the beauty that 
they bring to our world, if you have ever known or been hugged by a 
child with Down syndrome.
  We have a wonderful place in my community called the Gertrude Barber 
Center that just has done wonderful work with those children over the 
years. But they are precious. They are very precious, and I think 
that's the important thing here is that they all bring gifts to our 
world and they bring gifts to our lives.
  When I think about, as I mentioned in the beginning, my own son who 
is now 30 and the grandchild that he's brought into my life and what 
he's doing as a young man, the value of all of these children, born, 
unborn, we have yet to see what they will bring to our world.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. This is really a bipartisan debate. One of 
the things I know my good friend from Pennsylvania and I will agree 
with, there is nothing better than having grandchildren. It is worth 
having children, isn't it?
  But to my good colleagues from Tennessee and Minnesota, do either one 
you have want to add anything before we lose this hour?
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I agree with both of you. I'm not sure why I 
had kids first. I just need to go to grandkids. They are so much 
better. But I think that you can't imagine life--I know I have heard 
this right here--without our children and without our grandchildren. 
When you see a child out there--anybody that would abuse a child, I 
have no tolerance for them whatsoever. But to have a hug from a child, 
it doesn't matter whether that child is challenged or not, it's love. 
And I can't imagine life without mine and my grandchildren.
  I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. And if I could just add, I think that it's so 
important that you have offered this opportunity for us to honor and 
recognize Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mattie Brinkerhoff, 
Victoria Woodhull, Mary Wollstonecraft, Alice Paul, among many other 
women who stood strong for women's rights and for the value of women in 
the country, but also, to be clear, that these women also stood for the 
unborn. They weren't on a wild tear to make sure that women could have 
the right to an abortion. They stood strong for women's rights, 
understanding that it's all women, born and preborn, that need to have 
their rights secured.
  So I am very grateful that you posted this Women's History Month, and 
especially highlighting the fact that our foremothers who went before 
stood for life, just as we stand for life today. So I thank you, and I 
thank Representative Dahlkemper.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. As we go back out into the hall and we look at that 
statue of the women who gave us the opportunity to be able to be here 
on the floor today, not only did they give us the right to vote, they 
gave all children the opportunity to have the right to life. And it 
wasn't until Roe v. Wade that that was taken away.
  Maybe we can be the generation of women that will find ourselves with 
a statue out in the hall that will give all children, all God's 
children back the right to life. Thank you all for this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________