[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1434-H1437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ABORTION IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to have the 
opportunity to be here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives. I ask that people who are listening to our 
conversation weigh heavily on some of the remarks that will be made 
here this half hour.
  I come to the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, to address the situation of 
innocent, unborn human life in America and to recount the path that we 
have followed and to lay out a path for the future that gives us a 
better opportunity to save as many lives as possible.
  For me, Mr. Speaker, I recall that when 1973 rolled around--January 
22, 1973--on that date, we had two major decisions that came down from 
the United States Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade, which most everybody 
knows; and the other was Doe v. Bolton. Of those two cases that dropped 
on us in January of 1973, not very many people, if any, understood the 
magnitude of the decisions that had been made that day or the impact it 
would have on the population of the United States of America.
  They did not believe that we would see 45 years of pro-life marches 
coming to the city in the middle of the winter and sometimes marching 
through the snow from down on the Mall, all the way up to the United 
States Supreme Court building, calling upon the Supreme Court to 
correct the decision that was made by an activist court in 1973.
  The bottom line of that decision was that an abortion was essentially 
declared to be, some would say, a constitutional right for any reason 
or no reason at all, as much as you might want to parse the phrases in 
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Mr. Speaker.
  Of course, for me, I didn't realize the impact of this in 1973. But 
by 1976, when my first son was born, I remember holding him in my hands 
and looking at David Steven King, understanding the miracle of life and 
the miracle of birth and thinking within that first hour of his life 
how anyone could take his life now, this little miracle child with that 
big head and dark hair and blue eyes and gurgling a little bit and 
crying some and squirming a lot, but a miracle.
  I thought: How could anyone take his life now, when he is an hour old 
or a minute old or a minute before he was born or an hour before he was 
born? Could they take his life a day before, a week before, or a month 
before, or a trimester before?
  When could you decide that this child's life could be ended, and do 
so within a moral framework rather than a framework of maybe self-
interest?
  I concluded that there was only one moment, only one instant. We have 
to choose that moment when life begins. There is only one, and that is 
the moment of conception. We all know that. I knew it in 1973. I am 
sure I knew it before then, but I hadn't thought about it very much.
  And here we are today and we know. We know by the benefit of 
ultrasound. We are watching little babies squirm around in the womb. We 
are watching them yawn and stretch and suck their thumbs and try to 
talk and stretch themselves and belch and do all the things inside the 
womb that they do pretty shortly when they get outside the womb. It is 
life. It is miraculous life. Little hands, little feet, little fingers, 
a little nose, little eyes. They are little babies that are 
defenseless.
  This Congress has allowed a Supreme Court to impose abortion on 
demand in America, and we have worked to put together very few 
limitations on that abortion on demand. I don't think we have done 
enough, either, to send the message to America that life begins at the 
moment of conception. But ultrasound has shown many of us in this 
country--millions of us--that life does exist inside the womb.
  We know that we can, even with a transabdominal ultrasound, verify a 
heartbeat in 7 to 8 weeks from conception. In 7 to 9 weeks, that little 
baby is formed by then with a beating heart. We know that of those 
babies that have a detectable beating heart, 95 percent of those babies 
will experience a successful birth. It is at least 95 percent. Some say 
more.
  So 95 percent of them, or more, are destined to experience a 
successful birth. Yet the most dangerous place for a baby is in the 
mother's womb. It is the most dangerous place because our hearts are 
hardened by a Supreme Court decision that some think will not change, 
that we have to live with it

[[Page H1435]]

in perpetuity and accept the consequences of 60 million Americans being 
aborted.
  There is a hole in the population of America that is 60 billion 
babies strong. Some of those little girls who were aborted would be 
mothers by now. When you do the math on that just on the back of the 
envelope, that is perhaps as many as another 60 million babies--a 
missing 120 million Americans that would otherwise have been born in 
this country and had the opportunity to live, to love, to laugh, to 
learn, to worship, to be mothers or fathers themselves. That is what we 
are asking for here in this Congress with 170 cosponsors on the 
Heartbeat bill.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), 
one of those cosponsors who is a bit of a rare commodity himself, a 
conservative from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, pleased to join my colleague 
from Iowa (Mr. King) tonight, who has been a very strong, tireless 
leader on this issue and many other important ones for our Congress and 
our country. So I thank him for that and for letting me be here to be a 
part of this tonight.
  Obviously, this is a very important issue and we need to have a much 
better discussion than we have had in a long time in this country.
  The moral of the Heartbeat Protection Act is extremely simple to 
understand. It is against the law for a physician to perform an 
abortion after detecting a heartbeat, other than to save the life of 
the mother.
  Mr. King was speaking a moment ago about this. For anybody who uses 
common sense, life begins at that moment of conception. At that moment 
of conception, you have a life. If you don't have a conception, 
obviously, you don't have a life.
  So how is it that it is even a debate? How do people hide on the 
sidelines, in the shadows, somehow debating it as something like, 
``Well, is it really a life,'' or, ``At what line do we draw that point 
at?''
  That is an important point Mr. King made as well with all the 
different ideas of when an abortion is appropriate.
  We have a 20-week mark. We have the end of the first trimester, the 
end of the second trimester.
  What date is appropriate?
  We have people these days talking about partial-birth abortion not 
being a problem at all. Even in some extreme quarters, some people are 
saying that post-birth is somehow an acceptable way and that it isn't 
really a person with rights at that point.
  We are talking about a much narrower thing here, with the heartbeat 
being a true detectable moment of life. When prospective mothers go in 
for those ultrasounds, it is a very moving moment for her, and, 
hopefully, her mate there with her, to see what is going on inside 
there with all those little baby parts that are being formed and the 
miracle that life is.
  But it is really a telling moment when that prospective mother hears 
that heartbeat. That is what is so important in this debate about 
having the tool of an ultrasound to show what is really going on here, 
for those who try to obfuscate what is happening with the pregnancy. 
Let that prospective mother make an informed decision, not one that is 
hidden, not one that is obfuscated by, ``Oh, it is just a tissue mass 
or something.''
  The crime about a lot of this is that a lot of these women are not 
being allowed to make an informed decision about what is really going 
on.
  So this Heartbeat bill that Mr. King is championing here is an 
important moment in time for a prospective mom and her mate to be able 
to have an informed decision and really contemplate this life that is 
happening and the downside of what that abortion might mean.
  So, indeed, is it not a crime to murder a human being with a 
heartbeat?
  It really shouldn't be any different for babies that are yet to be 
born.
  Arguably, since they are innocent, isn't it more important we protect 
their rights?
  They don't really have someone to speak for them, except for those of 
us who realize what we are truly taking about here: an innocent life 
with a heartbeat that will become a life outside of the womb and walk 
amongst the rest of us humans with dignity, with passion, with ideas, 
with dreams. That is what we are defending here.
  It really mystifies me how legislation like this is so difficult to 
move through this body, the Senate, the Congress as a whole, or State 
legislatures in other types of bills we have tried in order to preserve 
life, to preserve the value of life.
  Indeed, if we are not a country that is going to value life in all of 
its human forms, then what are we?
  Our Founders placed a great value on those liberties that have formed 
this country. Indeed, right above the dais it says: ``In God we 
trust.''
  I think God watches what we do here. He is watching what is happening 
to these babies and he wants us to tell the truth and know the truth 
and be able to project the truth on what is really going on with a 
pregnancy or those who are contemplating a very serious decision.
  This bill will go a long way toward shedding the light on a 
quantifiable moment when there is a detected heartbeat that anybody 
around that ultrasound can hear. That should be a reality moment. I 
think more times than not, a prospective mother will make a decision 
for life, given that.
  I commend my colleague, Mr. King, for battling this for those who 
have lost their lives so many millions of times in the past and had 
nobody to defend them. But he is building momentum on this legislation 
and his effort with so many pro-life groups around the country, so many 
pro-life legislators that are onboard with this. We need a couple more 
of these national groups to get involved and not see the fog, but, 
instead, see the clear path that this is.
  I implore people to contact their legislators and contact the 
organizations that are supposed to be standing for life and make sure 
they get onboard with this effort, because a heartbeat is a true 
indication of life.
  I thank Mr. King for his effort with this.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman gives me a little too 
much credit and doesn't take enough credit for himself.

                              {time}  1845

  That is that measure of humility I was asked about earlier today. 
Trent Franks always said: The funny thing about humility, about the 
time you think you have achieved it, you have lost it.
  Mr. LaMalfa is a solid principled conservative, and I appreciate him 
coming to the floor to defend life. The effort that we have had is the 
whip team has gone out and pulled together 170 cosponsors on this bill 
that has set the stage for a path that I believe soon will be to the 
floor of the House of Representatives. Let's put the Heartbeat bill 
over on Mitch McConnell's desk. That is a good place for a lot of good 
things to have a chance to happen, even though they are a little slower 
at moving over there than we are over here.
  One of the nimble folks who has been actively engaged in the pro-life 
movement in the House of Representatives is Mr. Lamborn from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman King for his endless 
and tireless leadership in reminding us of the humanity of the unborn. 
I am a proud cosponsor of the Heartbeat Protection Act. I am one of 
those 170 who have stepped forward to support this much-needed piece of 
legislation.
  The development of an unborn baby is truly miraculous. Around 6 to 8 
weeks, you can detect, through ultrasound, the heartbeat of the little 
child inside the mother's womb; 6 to 8 weeks. So I don't see how people 
can deny that an abortion is the taking of a human life.
  How many lives would we save if we remembered that simple fact?
  What if instead of rushing to abortion, which some people think is 
their only option, we instead turned our attention to addressing 
practical needs, the needs of a woman facing a pregnancy decision?
  What if we empowered women to carry and raise their child?
  Or what if we did everything we could to promote a stable and happy 
life for the child through adoption?
  America was built on the principle that life is a God-given gift. 
Here, in Congress, it is our duty to protect

[[Page H1436]]

human life at all stages. I will continue to do so, and I know 
Representative King will continue to do so. I thank him for his 
leadership. I am glad that I can support him with this wonderful piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for coming to the floor to make such a strong message here on the 
sanctity of human life.
  When I think about that heartbeat, a heartbeat is a certain indicator 
of life. If the baby has a beating heart, we know that baby is alive. 
Statistically speaking, 95 percent or more of those little babies that 
have a beating heart, that can be detected by an ultrasound in that 6- 
to 8-week period of time, 95 percent of them will experience a 
successful birth.
  I have asked the question to those who weren't supportive of the 
bill: Did you ever hear the expression, ``Let's error on the side of 
life?''
  Well, let's not error with life at all if we can help it. If we have 
a 95 percent chance of a successful birth, we can't take a chance on 
ending that little baby's life.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill that has come together over the last 
year and a half or so. Just to mention some of the points here that I 
think are important is that we have at least 162 pro-life organizations 
and leaders that support the Heartbeat bill. I have a little 
demonstration here.
  These are some of the organizations and leaders that support the 
Heartbeat bill. We have to really search pretty hard to find somebody 
that is not onboard.
  You can go down through this list. I could read these all off, but I 
think it would be a little bit tiresome and maybe a little bit 
redundant. I put this together. This may be one-third of--or maybe even 
one-fourth--of the overall list of 162 pro-life organizations and 
leaders that support the Heartbeat bill. It is nearly universal across 
this country.
  Of course, we don't have Planned Parenthood on here. We don't have 
the NARAL here. The National Abortion Rights Action League is what they 
used to be. They say they aren't anymore, but, yes, they are.
  We have the pro-life organizations here: the people who care about 
life, the people who understand that human life is sacred in all of its 
forms, it begins at the moment of conception, that we have to protect 
life from that time on, and that we have a constitutional duty to do 
so. We have an equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Constitution that tells us that.
  But it seems as though the United States Supreme Court, in Roe v. 
Wade and Doe v. Bolton, upset that. They decided that a right to 
privacy, which was a manufactured right--I don't think I have it in my 
memos--but it is Griswold v. Connecticut back in the 1960s. It is a 
decision that a couple had a right to privacy in order to buy birth 
control pills. It was in Connecticut in that period of time. Shortly 
after that decision, they decided it wasn't just a married couple that 
had a right to privacy; it was an unmarried couple that had a right to 
privacy in the form of contraceptives. That was only in the mid-
sixties.
  Then Roe v. Wade came along. I think that this Court can never be 
defended for the decision that they made, the idea that privacy trumps 
life, and that the privacy of a mother will allow for an abortion at 
any stage, is how this all came together between Roe v. Wade and Doe v. 
Bolton.
  But even some of our professors that you might think have been on the 
other side of the issue had their skepticism. In fact, there is a bit 
of it here in Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a statement that she made in 1985. 
Our Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said:

       Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a 
     judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the 
     extreme statute before the court. Heavyhanded judicial 
     intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have 
     provoked, not resolved, the conflict.

  I would restate the Fourteenth Amendment. It says this: ``No State 
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of 
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws.''
  This comes back to personhood. I believe that a conceived baby from 
that moment is a person. We don't have the technical medical ability to 
define that moment at this point, Mr. Speaker, but we can define 
``heartbeat,'' and we have done so in the Heartbeat Protection Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Rothfus), who has been a leader and a fighter for life since back in 
the 1980s or so, when I was still in the crib.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. King for his 
work on the Heartbeat Protection Act. It gives us an opportunity to 
reflect on some of those bigger issues that we have going on in our 
society.
  This is personal to everybody. We all have our own stories of when we 
are in a family situation and somebody becomes pregnant. I certainly 
remember that when my wife and I had our first child. The first visit 
to the doctor when you got to hear the heartbeat was just amazing.
  I remember also having a subsequent appointment where the doctor 
couldn't find the heartbeat. We were very concerned, very worried, so 
they sent us to the hospital. They wanted us to have another test. It 
is a small town we were in. The hospital was where they had the 
sonogram. My wife and I were praying all the way: Please, let this baby 
be okay.
  Well, we got to the hospital and the technician did a sonogram, and, 
lo and behold, we saw the baby, we saw the beating heart, and we were 
just in awe at this new human life.
  Mothers and fathers are forever changed when they first hear that 
heartbeat, that tiny pulse that reinforces the big and beautiful 
reality of a precious human life.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise in support of H.R. 490, the Heartbeat 
Protection Act. As a lawmaker, I took an oath to our Constitution to 
protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. That is why I am 
cosponsoring this bill.
  This legislation protects a pre-born baby's life when his or her 
heartbeat is detected. A heartbeat is a very basic sign of life. The 
pulse represents a unique person with inherent dignity and natural, 
human and constitutional rights that extend throughout the continuum of 
life through conception until natural death.
  And where do these rights come from?
  The Founders who signed the Declaration knew, for the Declaration 
itself says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights.''
  That is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the first unalienable right 
that is identified is the right to life.
  Do you know who else knew?
  President Kennedy.
  President Kennedy reminded us in a different context, in the struggle 
against atheistic totalitarian communism. He said these words: ``And 
yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are 
still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come 
not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.''
  The right to life, defined in our Declaration, protected in our 
Constitution, and reiterated time and again by leaders across the 
religious and political spectrum, applies to every human life. It is 
easy to see who is human, if you look.
  Twenty-six years ago, the late Governor Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, 
and others, including Sargent Shriver and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, 
signed onto a statement regarding abortion as true today as when it was 
published. Under the section of that document that was titled ``Without 
a Doubt, a Human Life,'' Governor Casey and his coauthors observed:

       From the beginning, each human embryo has its own unique 
     genetic identity. Three and a half weeks after conception, 
     its heart starts beating. At 6 weeks, brain activity can be 
     detected. At the end of 2 months, the limbs, fingers, and 
     toes are complete. By 3 months, the baby is quite active, 
     forming fists, bending arms, and curling toes. At 4 months, 
     vocal cords, eyelashes, teeth buds, fingernails, and toenails 
     are all present. By 5 months, the baby is sucking its thumb, 
     punching, kicking, and going through the motions of crying. 
     By 6 months, it responds to light and sound and can recognize 
     its mother's voice.


[[Page H1437]]


  The statement went on:

       Advocates of unrestricted abortion do not want the public 
     to focus on these undeniable facts of fetal development, 
     but the facts cannot be ignored. They may claim that 
     abortion is a violent act, not against potential life, but 
     against a living, growing human being, a life with 
     potential.

  Governor Casey subscribed to that belief.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Intentionally stopping a heartbeat is 
not healthcare.
  H.R. 490 recognizes what science has already affirmed: that there is 
a baby growing in her mother's womb, one with her own distinct 
heartbeat.
  Therefore, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among 
us: to defend the defenseless.
  How can our country continue to flourish and claim itself as a 
champion of human rights when we allow our society to rid ourselves of 
our own future generations?
  That is why I came to the floor today to urge support for the 
Heartbeat Protection Act, to give our country a chance to reflect on 
some of the deeper questions and deeper values, to walk in solidarity 
with one another when one encounters a difficult situation, and to 
stand in each another's shoes with empathy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his eloquent words.
  I hadn't heard the description delivered by Governor Casey in those 
years back. But Governor Bob Casey--God rest his soul--captured my 
attention years ago, 20 or more years ago. I had a quote from Governor 
Bob Casey, a Democrat, that I had on my bulletin board that I don't 
have to look up anymore. And it was this:

       Human life cannot be measured. It is the measure itself 
     against which all other things are weighed.

  It rang so clear and true to me that I cut it out of the magazine and 
stuck it up on the bulletin board. His words echo in this Chamber 
today. I wish they echoed in his son over in the Senate the same way 
they echoed out of the mouth of Governor Bob Casey back in those days 
when he was denied the opportunity to speak before the Democratic 
National Convention because he is pro-life. And we look today and we 
see this issue has been more and more polarized. I hope that we can be 
more broad with this and that we can be more bipartisan than we are.

                              {time}  1900

  We do have bipartisan cosponsorship on this bill. It is narrow, but 
it exists.
  I urge, Mr. Speaker, this body to take this bill to the floor. 170 
cosponsors is further ahead than any comparable piece of pro-life 
legislation. To have that many cosponsors and a good number of other 
Members who have said, ``I am not ready to sign on the dotted line, but 
you bring it to the floor, and I will vote `yes,' '' I think we get to 
``yes,'' but we need to bring it here.
  There are concerns that, well, if we pass it off the floor of the 
House, the Senate won't take it up. Well, we know they won't take it up 
if we don't pass it off the floor of the House.
  There is concern about the Supreme Court. Of course there is. We have 
to challenge the Court. We are going to live with the 1 million 
abortions a year in this country until we are willing to challenge the 
Court and do so successfully.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to see one or two more 
appointments to this Court in the next 2 or 3 or more years, and we 
need to get the bill off the floor, onto the desk of Leader McConnell 
so that it has a chance then to go to the President's desk, where I am 
very confident that President Trump will sign the bill. And then it has 
a chance to go--I am happy with it not being litigated, but we expect 
it will be litigated like every other effective piece of pro-life 
legislation.
  I appreciate the attention tonight, Mr. Speaker, and the speakers who 
have come to the floor to weigh in for innocent, unborn human life and 
to lay out the path for the future that we have to follow here if we 
are to answer to God and country for that gift from God, which is life, 
in the first priority, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________