[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 160 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7884-H7885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNDERSTANDING WHAT LATE-TERM ABORTION IS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Chamber took up H.R.
36, a bill dealing with pain-capable unborn children; and a bill that,
in its result, would cause the United States to join the vast bulk of
nations in the world wherein the termination of lives of children who
are not only capable of feeling pain, but under what we understand to
be the best science may, in fact, feel more pain because of the density
of the nerve tissue, as they are in this roughly fifth month of
development.
I guess four times in the brief time that I have been in this
building, we have seen the Chamber erupt into applause, oftentimes over
partisan-perceived victories.
The first time the Chamber erupted into applause is when my
colleagues across the aisle were giddy with joy when a bill that would
have ensured that the Department of Defense didn't spend money to
perform transgender procedures on soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines failed in the form of an amendment. Another had to do with
healthcare. Another had to do with the return of Majority Whip Steve
Scalise. That was indeed a bipartisan eruption in applause.
Then there was an eruption from this side of the Chamber when H.R. 36
passed, as there was a recognition that late-term abortion is barbaric
and counter to the ideas put forth to the world when, in the
Declaration of Independence, it was written that we hold certain truths
to be self-evident, and among those was life.
Too many people have failed to grasp the nature of what late-term
abortion is, yet to grapple with the problem will require to understand
what exactly that problem is.
So to look at the other six nations in the world that allow the
termination of life after 5 months, we see nations like Vietnam, North
Korea, China, and the United States.
Then to listen to the doctors who have performed these procedures
describe in what was literally excruciating detail how the procedure is
performed, that an instrument is inserted into the uterus, and probing
is done until something is found, and the instrument is latched on, and
then there is pulling, and out comes an arm or a leg or a piece of a
head or a torso. Then, in fact, that unborn child, who science tells us
can feel pain, dies by virtue of bleeding to death inside its very
host. That is the nature of these procedures.
Estimates tell us that if the United States joined the fast bulk of
the nations on the planet in outlawing late-term abortions, somewhere
between 14,000 and 20,000 children every year wouldn't experience an
unspeakable demise of literally being ripped from their host limb by
limb and bleeding to death, all whilst, in the best estimates of
scientists, feeling the pain of that death.
To put that in terms of Virginia's Fifth District, that is the
population of Cumberland County twice every year, roughly.
So there was applause from the Members who saw that the United States
would join the ranks of the civilized nations in the world who put
appropriate value on life, Mr. Speaker, and disappointment from some on
the other side of the aisle, other than a few brave individuals to be
distinguished by departing from the herd and recognizing the value and
sanctity of life thereto, and immediate news stories about how H.R. 36
was dead on arrival in the United States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the American people will not
let that be the case.
I often speak of the history of the Fifth District of Virginia that
gave us great Americans like Booker T. Washington and Barbara Johns,
Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, and
Patrick Henry.
As I thought about how to best address the need for action in the
other Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I determined that there were no better
words than those delivered by Patrick Henry from Virginia, slightly
amended, on March 23, 1775, in St. John's Cathedral as he addressed the
second Virginia Assembly in Richmond, Virginia.
So with all credit to the author, whom I paraphrase, I would read:
Mr. Speaker, no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism and
abilities of the very worthy people who have served and do serve in
this Senate.
{time} 1215
But different people often see the same subject in different lights;
and, therefore, I hope it will not be a thought disrespectful to those
Senators if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very
opposite of many of theirs, I shall speak forth of my sentiments freely
and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.
The question before the Senate is one of an awful consequence to this
country. For my part, I consider it nothing less than a question of
life or death, and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought
to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to
arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to
our creator and country.
Should I keep back my opinions at such times through a fear of giving
offense or political loss? I should consider myself guilty of treason
and of cowardice, an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of our
creator, who I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. Speaker, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of
hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against painful truth and listen to
the song of the siren until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the
role of wise people engaged in a great and arduous struggle for life?
Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not the things which so nearly concern their
temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to
know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have
but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of
experience, of history. I have no way of judging the future but by the
past.
In judging the past, I wish to know for what has been the conduct of
the abortion industry for the last 44 years to justify those hopes with
which gentlemen are pleased to solace themselves.
The Senate, is that insidious smile which our petition has been
received lately? Trust it not, sir. It will prove a snare at your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with the promise
[[Page H7885]]
of later action. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our
petition comports with these nearly 60 million lives lost in this
country alone, which cover our waters and darken our lands. Is taking
an unborn life a work of love and reconciliation? Is subjecting to pain
a 5-month-old child as no other nation save six on the Earth allowed to
happen? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the implements of death
and destruction.
I ask what means this perpetual delay of voting? What is its purpose?
What is the force of inaction? Can gentlemen assign another possible
motive for it than to ensure that it never occurs?
Destruction? No, sir, destruction. They are set to send and
perpetuate this loss of life, and have so long supported this loss of
life, and now an opportunity presents itself to vote, and what do we
have to oppose inaction? Mr. Speaker, we have our voices. Shall we try
again and again? Shall we bring this bill back next year? We have been
trying that for 40 years. Have we anything new to offer upon the
subject? Nothing.
We have held this subject in every light of which it is capable. It
has all been, to this date, in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and
supplication? What terms shall we find that have not already been
exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, Mr. Speaker, deceive ourselves.
We have done everything that we could do to avert this death that has
claimed nearly 60 million lives and 14 to 20 million unborn lives after
the age of 5 months in utero every single year. We have petitioned, we
have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves
and have implored its inner position to arrest the tyrannical hands of
the abortion industry and its champions in Washington, and our
petitions have been slighted. Our remonstrations produce additional
death and insult. Our supplications have been disregarded, and we have
been spurned with contempt from the floor of the Chamber of the
opposing body. In vain these things we may indulge the fond hope of
life and justice.
If we support life, if we mean to preserve and violate this
fundamental right for which we have been so long arguing, if we mean
not basely to abandon this noble struggle which we have been so long
engaged in, in which we have pledged ourselves to never abandon until
the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must hope the
American people demand the Senate hold a vote. We must hope the
American people demand the Senate hold a vote.
An appeal to democracy and to the Lord of hosts is all that is left
to us. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a promise of later
action. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition
comports with the nearly 60 million lives ended.
We can be heard in numbers across the fruited plain. A vote should be
held for or against life. Let us have it. Let us have it. In this vein,
sir, to extenuate the matter, gentlemen may cry: Later; later; next
year. But there is no later. The killing has continued for over 40
years. The next gale that sweeps to the North will bring to our ears
cries of the yet born. The House has voted. Why is the Senate idle?
What is it that they wish? What would they have? Is political victory
so dear or a title so sweet as to be purchased at the price of human
life? Forbid it, Almighty God.
Mr. Speaker, I know not what course others may take, but as for me,
my hope is that there is a vote. My hope is that we stand for life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________