[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14864]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. KEN BENTSEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 24, 2002

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule on 
H.R. 4965, the so-called ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002,'' a 
measure that is probably unconstitutional, an end-run on established 
laws protecting a woman's right to choose, and will do little to end 
late term abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has addressed this matter four separate times 
in the last seven years, only to return back to square one. What makes 
this latest attempt even more puzzling is that the Supreme Court, in 
the Carhart v. Stenberg case in 2000, held that Nebraska's own late 
term abortion ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court explained 
that such bans unconstitutionally burden a woman's protected right to 
choose her own health-related decisions, and lack the necessary 
exception to protect a woman's health.
  Even with these standards in place, today's measure proceeds 
defiantly into certain legal peril, as it refuses to make the health-
related exception. The measure's proponents instead argue that it is 
sufficient to include congressional findings in the bill stating that 
no such health exception is necessary. Such so-called ``findings,'' 
however, no matter how extensive they may be, cannot magically turn an 
unconstitutional piece of legislation into one that passes legal 
muster, as any first-year law student can tell you. Indeed, a number of 
prominent health groups, including the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, with more than 40,000 members 
representing approximately 90 percent of all board-certified 
obstetricians and gynecologists in the U.S., has consistently opposed 
efforts to ban such practices. The Congress must understand that such 
medical and health decisions are best left to women and their doctors, 
not to legislators intent on promulgating their divisive and narrow 
agenda.
  Despite all these difficulties, the leadership, as anticipated, has 
refused to allow for amendments, cutting, off debate on what is an 
extraordinarily important issue area. If the leadership were truly 
interested in examining all viable alternatives, they would have 
allowed for amendments, including H.R. 2702, the Hoyer-Greenwood ``Late 
Term Abortion Restriction Act,'' of which I am a cosponsor. This 
amendment would present a sound alternative to H.R. 4965, as it bans 
all late-term abortions, makes the necessary health-related exception, 
and is consistent with the Supreme Court's dictates. Because I believe 
that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, I would have supported 
this amendment had it been allowed in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores potential adverse complications in 
pregnancies, and thus effectively bans any semblance of compromise or 
informed discussion on this issue. This measure tells American women 
that it is more important for the leadership to score political points 
than it is to show concern for their health. As the measure is unwise, 
unyielding, and for all practical purposes unconstitutional, I must 
vote against both the rule for H.R. 4965 and the underlying 
legislation.

                          ____________________