[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14848-14849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 24, 2002

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state my opposition 
to the unconstitutional H.R. 4965, the Late Term Abortion Act of 2002.
  At a time when there are many other issues facing our nation, from 
the economy to the war on terrorism, the Republican leadership has 
instead decided to interfere with a woman's right to choose.
  Since the last House vote on a bill banning so-called ``partial-birth 
abortion,'' the Supreme Court has spoken unequivocally on these bans. 
The decision in Roe v. Wade struck a careful balance between the right 
of a woman to choose and the states' interest in protecting potential 
life after viability. Most recently, in June 2000, the Court handed 
down Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down a Nebraska law banning 
``partial-birth abortions.'' The Nebraska law is nearly identical to 
H.R. 4965. The court gave the following reasons for striking the 
Nebraska ban.
  First, the Nebraska ban was unconstitutionally vague because it did 
not rely on a medical definition of what is prohibited. H.R. 4965 
suffers from this same flaw. The bill does not identify any specific 
procedure it seeks to ban. Nor does it contain language stating that it 
applies only post-viability. Nor does it exclude common procedures from 
its prohibitions. As a result, contrary to rhetoric that focuses on a 
full-term fetus, the bill applies well before viability, and could ban 
other safe procedures.
  Second, the Nebraska law did not provide an exception to protect 
women's health. Instead of including health exceptions, the sponsors of 
H.R. 4965 have provided fifteen pages of ``findings'' which assert that 
Congressional findings of fact are superior to judicial findings of 
fact. In short, these sponsors are essentially admitting that their 
bill is unconstitutional under Stenberg v. Carhart, and that Congress 
should simply ignore this Supreme Court ruling.
  As I value women's health and a woman's right to choose, I voted 
against H.R. 4965.

[[Page 14849]]



                          ____________________