[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6299-6301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 503, UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT 
                                OF 2001

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 119 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 119

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     503) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from 
     assault and murder, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed 
     in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule 
     XVIII and numbered 1, if offered by Representative Lofgren of 
     California or her designee, which shall be considered as read 
     and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
modified closed rule for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. 
The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules 
report shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order the amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, if offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) or her designee, which shall 
be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  This is a fair rule, which will permit a thorough discussion of all 
of the relevant issues. Indeed, after 2 hours of debate and 
consideration of a Democrat substitute amendment, we will be more than 
ready to vote on H.R. 503. This is not a complex issue.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1996, Gregory Robbins, an Air Force 
enlisted man, wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and brutally beat his 
pregnant 18-year-old wife. Soon after, his young wife gave birth to a 
stillborn 8-month-old fetus. To their surprise and disappointment, the 
Air Force prosecutors concluded that, although they could charge 
Gregory Robbins with simple assault, they could not charge him in the 
death of the couple's child. Why? Because Federal murder laws do not 
recognize the unborn. A criminal can beat a pregnant woman in the 
stomach to kill the baby, and the law ignores her pregnancy.
  This is not just an isolated problem. Three years ago in my hometown 
of Charlotte, North Carolina, Ruth Croston and her unborn child were 
brutally murdered by her estranged husband. The husband later was 
charged with domestic violence, but the prosecutors could do nothing 
about the dead child.
  It is wrong, and it has to be stopped. Fortunately, 24 States have 
adopted laws that protect pregnant women from assaults by abusive 
boyfriends or husbands, and now it is time for the Federal Government 
to do the same.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a Federal crime to 
attack a pregnant woman in order to kill or injure her fetus. The bill 
would only apply in cases where the underlying assault is, in and of 
itself, a Federal crime, such as attacks by military personnel or 
attacks on Federal property.
  This bill, introduced by my good friend the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should have the support of everyone in Congress. 
Whether you are pro-life, such as myself, or pro-choice, we should all 
agree to protect young women from forced, cruel, and painful abortions.
  All you have to do is ask the woman who just lost her child to such a 
violent attack. It is not the same thing as a simple assault. Clearly 
it is more serious and more emotionally jarring, and it should be 
treated accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
to support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 6300]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule that I will not actively 
oppose, but H.R. 503, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 
deserves full and open debate. A truly open rule would have insured 
that no one was shut out of the process.
  But everyone in the Chamber understands what is going on today. The 
majority did not bring this bill to the floor to protect pregnant 
women. The majority brought the measure to the floor today to launch 
its battle to end a woman's right to choose in the 107th Congress. But, 
more specifically, the majority is responding to the call of the 
National Right to Life Committee and their goal of achieving legal 
status and protections for a fetus.

                              {time}  1030

  If passed, this bill would mark the first time that our Federal laws 
would recognize the fetus in early stages of gestational development as 
a person, a notion that the Supreme Court considered but rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 represents an effort to endow a fetus with 
rights, such as recognition as a crime victim, and to thus erode the 
fundamental premise of Roe v. Wade. Aside from this general concern, 
there is a real threat that the bill will spur the antichoice movement 
to use the legislation as a building block to undermine a woman's right 
of reproductive freedom.
  The threat to Roe v. Wade could not be more clear. In Roe, the Court 
recognized a woman's right to have an abortion as a privacy right 
protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of whether a 
fetus is a person, the Court noted that the unborn have never been 
recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense, and concluded that 
``person,'' as used in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn.
  The supporters of H.R. 503 would suggest that they are advancing the 
bill in an effort to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is, 
at best, an awkward and, at worst, a dangerous effort. If the sponsors 
of H.R. 503 were truly concerned with the problem of violence against 
women, they would have supported full funding of the Violence Against 
Women Act. The amounts appropriated in the 2001 budget are more than 
$200 million short of the authorization levels.
  Mr. Speaker, a far more effective legislative alternative is 
available, which discourages crimes against pregnant women without 
undermining Roe v. Wade. Such an alternative is embodied in the 
Lofgren-Conyers substitute which defines the crime to be against the 
pregnant woman, whereas H.R. 503 makes the crime against the fetus. 
This distinction is a critical one because the substitute avoids the 
issue of ``fetal rights'' and ``fetal personhood'' that put the bill at 
odds with the principles of Roe v. Wade, medical science and common 
sense. Instead, the Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes it as the 
woman who suffers the injury when an assault causes harm to her fetus 
or causes her to lose the pregnancy.
  The substitute also acknowledges the connection between the woman and 
her fetus without distinguishing the rights of one from the other. That 
is a very important point.
  The substitute, therefore, accomplishes the stated goals of H.R. 503, 
deterring violent acts against pregnant women that cause injury to 
their fetuses or termination of a pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the majority's goal of averting 
violence against women in their developing pregnancies is secondary to 
the goal of undermining the reproductive rights of women. Rather than 
seeking to score points in the abortion debate, we invite the majority 
to join us in crafting legislation that protects women and mothers from 
violence that threatens all those who are under their care.
  I would note that H.R. 503 is unanimously opposed by groups concerned 
about ending domestic violence and protecting a woman's right to 
choose, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the 
National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the 
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the People for the 
American Way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 503. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a 
carefully constructed piece of legislation that will help fill the gap 
in Federal law with regard to protecting unborn children from violence.
  Current Federal law provides no additional punishment for criminals 
who commit acts of violence against pregnant women and kill or injure 
their unborn children. Thus, except in those States that recognize 
unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an 
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal 
consequences whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 would correct this deficiency in the law by 
providing that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child 
during the commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may 
be punished for a separate offense.
  I would like to reiterate what the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
said about a particularly heinous case. This legislation would ensure 
that prosecutors have the tools they need to prosecute criminals like 
Gregory Robbins, who was an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base 
in my State of Ohio, when he wrapped his fists in a T-shirt to reduce 
the chance that there might be bruising and visible wounds on the 
mother of the child and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and 
abdomen, and he killed the unborn baby in doing that.
  Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for the death 
because under Ohio law, there is a fetal homicide law, and they were 
able to do so under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But had Mr. 
Robbins committed this act just across the Ohio River, just across from 
my district which is Cincinnati, in Kentucky, a State which has no 
fetal homicide law, he would have received no additional punishment for 
killing the unborn child.
  By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that violent criminals who 
commit violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for 
injuring or killing those unborn children. Without the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act, the crimes against these innocent victims will 
continue to go unpunished.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the rule and H.R. 503 to provide meaningful protection for 
violence against unborn children. We ought to stop that in this 
country, and this is the appropriate legislation to do so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to take a moment to give the penalties from the Lofgren 
substitute, which are even stronger than those of the underlying bill. 
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute includes the following elements:
  One, it creates a separate criminal Federal offense for harm to a 
pregnant woman, which protects the legal status of a woman.
  Two, it recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of the 
crime that causes termination of the pregnancy.
  Three, it includes exactly the same sentences for the offenses as 
does the base bill, providing a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to 
the woman's pregnancy, and a maximum of life sentence for termination 
of a woman's pregnancy, and requires a conviction for the underlying 
predicate offense, requiring an intent to commit the predicate offense 
be proven.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 6301]]


  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 
119, and I would like to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, and all of the members of the Committee on 
Rules for their hard work on this fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is almost identical to the rule passed in the 
106th Congress to consider similar legislation that provides for 
thorough consideration of H.R. 503 by authorizing 2 hours of debate and 
an opportunity for the minority to offer a substitute amendment which 
will be debated for 1 hour. This is a fair rule which will provide 
ample time for both debate and amendment.
  Furthermore, the rule provides that the amendment committed in the 
Committee on Rules report, which makes a technical change to the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice shall be considered as adopted when 
the rule is adopted. I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on 
Rules with regard to the small perfecting provision, and I would also 
like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for working with me to facilitate 
the consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong 
opposition to the Rule for H.R. 503, ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
of 2001.'' We should have had more opportunity to discuss this 
extremely vital public policy matter in a serious way. This legislation 
has regrettably come to the House without more than nominal 
consideration of the consequences of the sponsor's bill. We can and 
should do better, Mr. Speaker.
  At this time, I would like to express my opposition to H.R. 503, the 
``Unborn Victims of Crime Act'' because I believe this is a veiled 
attempt to create a legal status for the unborn. While we would all 
like to protect pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by 
others, this bill seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-
abortion advocates a back door to overturning current law. I have seen 
similar legislation come before our committee and I am sorry to see it 
before the Congress yet again.
  I believe that the cosponsors of this bill had good intentions when 
it was introduced, but the practical effect of this legislation would 
effectively overturn 25 years of law concerning the right of a woman to 
choose. That would be a travesty.
  I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the 
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a 
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a 
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of 
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a 
crime against the pregnant woman.
  However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or 
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the 
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the 
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within 
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new 
category for unborn fetuses.
  H.R. 503 would amend the federal criminal code to create a new 
federal crime for bodily injury or death of an ``unborn child'' who is 
in utero. In brief, there is no requirement or intent to cause such 
death under federal law. The use of the works as ``unborn child,'' 
``death'' and ``bodily injury'' are designed to inflame and establish 
in federal precedent of recognizing the fetus as a person, which, if 
extended further, would result in a major collision between the rights 
of the mother and the rights of a fetus. While the proponents of this 
bill claim that the bill would not punish women who choose to terminate 
their pregnancies, it is my firm belief that this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
  This bill will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors 
being sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is 
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill 
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential 
for increased civil liability is present.
  Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic 
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or 
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result 
of that abuse.
  If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm 
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just 
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
  In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen 
some of our other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the 
sale of explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life 
than this bill.
  We do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses. 
A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any 
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever 
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________