[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16270-16271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      REVISED REMARKS FROM CONGRESSMAN CHET EDWARDS, JULY 26, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 24, 2002

                   Speaking on the Rule for H.R. 4965

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but 
I believe, like many Americans, that when the health of the mother is 
at risk, that is a decision that should be made by a woman and her 
doctor and not by politicians in Washington, D.C.
  I am sad to say that this rule is shameful and this bill is a false 
promise. I do find it interesting that those supporting this rule and 
this bill keep quoting the American Medical Association. I do not know 
if they just did not want to hear it or if they refuse to accept it. 
The organization they are quoting opposes this legislation.
  Why do I say this rule is shameful? First, it ensures that when this 
bill passes today, were it then to become law, it would never have the 
impact of law or save one baby because the Supreme Court has made it 
absolutely clear, not just once but five times that the law must have a 
health exemption when the mother's health is at risk.
  So maybe Ralph Reed was right when he said this issue is a political 
silver bullet. Unfortunately, from a policy standpoint, this bill will 
not save one baby.
  The proponents of this bill and this rule are forcing a false promise 
upon the American people, a promise that will not help one child. This 
rule is shameful because it denies Members of this House a vote of 
conscience. I respect your conscience. I respect your right to express 
your conscience. You have no right on an issue of this magnitude, of 
such deep conscience for so many Members, no one in this House has that 
right to deny us the right to a vote, to a vote for an amendment that 
the Supreme Court would then interpret as making this bill 
constitutional.
  I tried to offer an amendment to the Committee on Rules. It was 
similar to a bill I helped pass in 1987 in Texas that outlaws not one 
late-term abortion procedure, but outlaws all late-term abortion 
procedures except for a constitutionally required exception where a 
mother's health is at risk. For 15 years, the constitutionality of that 
Texas law has not been challenged. I would note that during the time 
that President Bush was then Governor of Texas, there was no effective 
effort or to my knowledge even serious legislative effort made to 
change that law. It was constitutional and it has worked.
  Supreme Court Justice O'Connor has made it very clear, that if you do 
not have a health exemption in this bill, it will not ever have the 
impact of becoming law. Let me quote her from the court Stenberg v. 
Carhart case of June 28 of 2000:
  ``First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent because it lacks an 
exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to 
preserve the health of the mother.''
  In case that is not clear enough for the supporters of this rule and 
this unconstitutional bill, she then goes on to outline all that a 
legislative body has to do to make such a bill constitutional. Just add 
the words ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for 
the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' That would be 
the only circumstance for an exception.
  The people who should be upset at this bill should be pro-life 
Americans all across this country who have been mislead by this 
unconstitutional bill into thinking it is going to save one child. Had 
this rule allowed us to vote on a constitutionally acceptable amendment 
for a health exception, we actually could do some good. What a shame.

                    Speaking on Passage of H.R. 4965

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican 
and mother of three when her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her 
child. Her doctors preserved Mrs. Costello's fertility with a procedure 
being outlawed in this bill. She then became pregnant again and gave 
birth to her fourth child.
  Listen to this loving mother's words. ``Because of this procedure, I 
now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy named Tucker. 
He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.''
  Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House has the right to substitute his 
or her judgment for that of a physician and a mother faced with a rare 
but tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing, a child has no 
chance of living outside of the mother's womb, and the goal is to save 
a mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right, not one.
  If there is one late-term abortion in America for frivolous reasons, 
that is one too many, regardless of the procedure used. I am strongly 
opposed to late-term abortions. But I believe when the health of the 
mother is at risk, that is a choice that should be made by a woman and 
her doctor, and not by politicians in Washington, D.C.
  That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the United States 
Supreme Court in the Stenberg v. Carhart opinion dated June 28, 2000. 
In that indication, the Supreme Court and its majority of justices made 
it very clear that the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law was 
unconstitutional, in these words.
  ``. . . Because it lacks an exception for those instances when the 
banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.''
  That is as clear as the English language can be. Justice O'Connor, 
the swing vote on this issue, has made it clear. The truth is that with 
no health exception for a woman, there will be no law; no law, not one 
baby saved.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has two flaws in it that make it little more 
than politics at its worst, as Ralph Reed said, a political silver 
bullet. First, it is unconstitutional, therefore meaningless. It is a 
false promise. Second, if the authors of this bill truly believe that 
American women are monsters who would take a perfectly healthy baby 
seconds before a perfectly healthy child birth and puncture its brain 
and kill that innocent child, then why is it that they just want to 
outlaw one procedure? If you assume the woman is that kind of a 
monster, then under this bill even if it were law and were 
constitutional, which it is not, then the woman could choose to use 
other late-term abortion procedures. Once again, a meaningless law, a

[[Page 16271]]

meaningless bill that will not save one baby's life.
  I think the people who should really be offended by this bill are 
those genuine pro-life Americans who want to stop late-term abortions. 
I want to stop late-term abortions, and I hope others who do would ask 
the proponents of this bill two questions. Is politics so important 
that you would rather pass a clearly unconstitutional bill than a bill 
that could actually become law, a bill like I helped pass in Texas 15 
years ago that is still the law of that State today? Second question: 
Why are you outlawing one procedure and leaving every other late-term 
abortion procedure perfectly legal?
  This bill is politics at its worst. It is a false promise.

                          ____________________