[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18820-18821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        H.R. 4292, THE BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, as I thought about the subject 
upon which I rise to speak today, I was reminded of the words of 
William Butler Yeats's poem ``The Second Coming,'' where he wrote: 
``Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed 
upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the 
ceremony of innocence is drowned.''
  Now, that is a pretty bleak picture, but I think it is an accurate 
reflection of the problem addressed by the bill I am here to discuss 
today.
  H.R. 4292, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation that 
would provide legal protection to living, fully born babies who survive 
abortions; tiny, helpless infants brought into the world through no 
choice of their own and struggling to survive.
  Now, surely we may say such legislation could not possibly be 
necessary. Surely fully born babies are already entitled to the 
protections of the law.

                              {time}  1345

  Well, until recently, that certainly was true, but the corrupting 
influence of a seemingly illimitable right to abortion, created out of 
whole cloth by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade has brought this well-
settled principle into question.
  Just weeks ago, for example, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United 
States Supreme Court extended the right to abortion to include the 
right to partial birth abortion, a procedure in which an abortionist 
delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside of 
the mother; punctures the child's skull with scissors, and sucks the 
child's brain out before completing the delivery.
  Every time I describe that procedure, I shudder but that is the 
reality of what the Supreme Court of the United States has said is 
protected by the Constitution of the United States.
  Now even more striking than the holding of the Carhart case is the 
fact that the Carhart court considered the location of an infant's body 
at the moment of death during a partial birth abortion to be irrelevant 
for purposes of the law. Rather, the Carhart court appears to have 
rested its decision on the pernicious notion that a partially-born 
infant's entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent not 
upon whether the child is born or unborn but upon whether or not the 
partially-born child's mother wants the child or not.
  The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made the 
point explicit on July 26, 2000, in Planned Parent of Central New 
Jersey v. Farmer, a case striking down New Jersey's partial birth 
abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, under 
Roe and Carhart a child's status under the law is dependent not upon 
the child's location inside or outside of the mother's body but upon 
whether the mother intends to abort the child or to give birth.
  The Farmer court stated that in contrast to an infant whose mother 
intends to give birth, an infant who is killed during a partial birth 
abortion is not entitled to the protections of the law because, and I 
quote, a woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give 
birth, closed quote.
  The logical implications of these judicial opinions are indeed 
shocking. Under the logic of these decisions, once a child is marked 
for abortion it is not relevant whether that child emerges from the 
womb as a live baby. A child marked for abortion may be treated as a 
nonentity even after a live birth and would not have the slightest 
rights under the law; no right to receive medical care, to be sustained 
in life or to receive any care at all. Under this logic, just as a 
child who survives an abortion and is born alive would have no claim to 
the protections of the law, there would appear to be no basis upon 
which the government may prohibit an abortionist from completely 
delivering

[[Page 18821]]

an infant before killing it or allowing it to die.
  As horrifying as it may seem, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
heard testimony indicating that this is, in fact, already occurring. 
According to eyewitness accounts, live-birth, so-called live-birth 
abortions, are indeed being performed, resulting in live-born premature 
infants who are simply allowed to die, sometimes without the provision 
of even basic comfort care such as warmth and nutrition.
  On one occasion, a nurse found a living infant naked on a scale in a 
soiled utility closet, and on another occasion a living infant was 
found lying naked on the edge of a sink. One baby was wrapped in a 
disposable towel and thrown in the trash.
  Consider that these things are happening today in this country. Now 
statements made by abortion supporters indicate that they support this 
expansion of the decision in Roe v. Wade. For example, on July 20 of 
this year, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League 
issued a press release criticizing H.R. 4292 because in NARAL's view 
extending legal personhood to premature infants who are born alive 
after surviving abortions substitutes an assault on Roe v. Wade.
  Well, I think they are wrong in their interpretation of Roe v. Wade, 
and I do not agree with that opinion but even that opinion, if properly 
understood, could not be extended in that way, but that is what they 
advocate.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this important legislation as it is 
considered by the House in the days to come.

                          ____________________