[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 89 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E928-E929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 18, 2013

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
1797, the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' Last year I 
opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation when it was brought 
to the floor under a suspension of the rules and fell well short of the 
two-thirds majority needed to pass. I opposed the bill, which 
arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising her constitutionally protected 
right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, last year for 
the same reasons I do now. This purely partisan and divisive 
legislation:
  1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus 
puts their lives at risk;
  2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother;
  3. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, unfairly 
targeted the District of Columbia; and
  4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and 
protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, the rule governing debate on this bill also set the 
terms of debate for the farm bill that makes drastic reductions in SNAP 
funding and nutrition programs that help women, children, infants, and 
the poor.
  Coupling these two bills together under one rule sends the uncaring 
message that it is right and good to force a woman to carry an unwanted 
pregnancy to term and then withhold from her and her infant the support 
necessary for them to maintain a nutritious and healthy diet.
  Madam Speaker, in 2010, Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care 
after 20 weeks.

[[Page E929]]

Since then 10 more red states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, 
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma--have 
enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate health 
exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or incest.
  H.R. 1797 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy of 
these states and make it the law of the land. In so doing, the bill 
poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women 
and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of 
abortions that occur after 20 weeks.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born 
with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to 
move limbs.
  In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the 
face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-
week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's 
baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby 
would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to 
terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. 
Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that 
followed. Eight days later, Danielle gave birth to a daughter, 
Elizabeth, who died 15 minutes later.
  H.R. 1797 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered 
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from 
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of 
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and 
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an 
abortion. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was 
protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health 
and her ability to have children in the future was preserved.
  Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or 
has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her 
family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to 
make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly 
opposes 20-week bans, citing the threat these laws pose to women's 
health.
  Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 1797 because it lacks the 
necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In 
fact, the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our 
colleague, Congressman Nadler, which would have added a ``health of the 
mother'' exception to the bill.
  During the markup of H.R. 1797 in the Judiciary Committee, 
Republicans even rejected an amendment I offered that would have 
provided a limited exception in cases where ``the pregnancy could 
result in severe and long-lasting damage to a woman's health, including 
lung disease, heart disease, or diabetes.''
  Imagine, Madam Speaker, an amendment permitting an exception in the 
case where a woman risked heart or lung disease was rejected by 
Judiciary Republicans as too lenient and compassionate toward women.
  I offered my amendment again to the Rules Committee but again, 
Committee Republicans refused to make it in order.
  Madam Speaker, it is an additional measure of just how incredibly bad 
this bill is that when it was introduced and considered in the 
Judiciary Committee, it did not even include an exception for rape or 
incest.
  Madam Speaker, this may come as news to some in this body, but each 
year approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as 
a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women 
under age 18.
  Madam Speaker, last and most important, I oppose H.R. 1797 because it 
is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to 
Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe 
v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from 
exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her 
health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal 
viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is 
acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-
fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 1797 violates this clear and long 
standing constitutional rule.
  In striking down Texas's pre-viability abortion prohibitions, the 
Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade:

       With respect to the State's important and legitimate 
     interest in potential life, the ``compelling'' point is at 
     viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has 
     the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. 
     State regulation protective of fetal life after viability 
     thus has both logical and biological justification. If the 
     State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, 
     it may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period, 
     except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of 
     the mother.

  Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a 
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of 
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the 
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 
(1979). Nor can the government restrict a woman's autonomy by 
arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to 
effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with 
the bill before us.
  If this bill ever were to become law, it would not survive a 
constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20-week 
provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as 
unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th 
Circuit because it ``unduly burden[ed] a woman's right to choose to 
abort a nonviable fetus.'' Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 
(10th Cir. 1996). And just last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a 
20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been 
``unalterably clear'' that ``a woman has a constitutional right to 
choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.'' 
Isaacson v. Horne,_F.3d_, No. 12-16670, 2013 WL 2160171, at *1 (9th 
Cir. May 21, 2013).
  Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy 
encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy 
before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a 
threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and 
must be preserved inviolate. For this reason, I offered an amendment 
before the Rules Committee that would ensure that the legislation 
before us is not to be interpreted to abridge this right. The Jackson 
Lee Amendment #2 provided:

       SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed or interpreted to limit the right of privacy 
     guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution as 
     interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the cases 
     of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt 
     v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 
     (1973).

  Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in 
order. Unregrettably, I strongly oppose H.R. 1797 and urge all members 
to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and 
health of women at risk.

                          ____________________