[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 2959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the question I am addressing today concerns 
Federal policy on when life becomes worthy of recognition and 
protection. We will have a bill on the floor today, H.R. 2175, the 
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act; and I am here to advocate its 
passage, which specifically addresses this policy.
  Lately, we can find stories in the news that point up some 
inconsistencies occurring when individuals, institutions, and 
policymakers define not just when life begins, but when it becomes 
worthy of protection. For example, last month the administration 
announced that a developing fetus should be eligible for the S-CHIP 
program of government-funded health insurance for low-income children. 
Then last week, surgeons performed delicate cardiac surgery on the 
grape-sized heart of a 23-week-old fetus. Finally, in other news, many 
pregnant widows of fallen husbands in the September 11 terrorist attack 
are receiving compensation for their yet unborn child. It seems the 
States of Virginia and New York recognize a fetus as a surviving 
dependent, while today in Congress, we debate the status of a baby who 
has already been delivered outside of his or her mother's womb. In all 
of these examples, in fact, the fetus is recognized as worthy of 
protection, while here we debate over protecting an already born baby. 
Obviously, this bill is necessary. These are living babies who must be 
protected.
  In the midst of all of this, there are some who advocate a policy we 
find questionable here in Congress. For example, consider Peter Singer, 
professor of bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at 
Princeton University. According to the Washington Times, in his 2000 
book, ``Writings on an Ethical Life,'' he discusses how some societies 
consider it virtuous to kill handicapped newborns. Professor Singer 
writes, ``If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly 
irrelevant aspects of killing the baby, we can see that the grounds for 
not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.'' This is 
disturbing language. More illustratively, in a Committee on the 
Judiciary July 20, 2000, hearing, we learned from registered nurses 
Jill Stanek and Allison Baker that the hospital at which these women 
worked, Advocate Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, has a written 
policy outlining procedures to perform when a child is unwanted. Christ 
Hospital calls it ``induced labor abortions.''
  Now, according to the July 20, 2000, testimony of Nurse Stanek, 
physicians willfully, prematurely induce labor with the intention of 
delivering a not yet viable child; but if the baby is born alive, he or 
she is simply left to die. A nurse might take it to what they call a 
``comfort room'' where it does die.
  According to Princeton University President Harold Shapiro's 
statement in the Princeton Weekly Bulletin on December 7, 1998, 
Professor Singer, in a letter of his own to the Wall Street Journal, 
notes that significant advances in medical technology require us to 
think in new ways about how we should make critical medical decisions 
about life and death. Professor Singer wrote that ``our increased 
medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by 
pretending that we are `allowing nature to take its course.' In a 
modern intensive care unit, it is doctors, not nature, who make the 
decisions.'' However, I fail to see how this hospital can shrug it off, 
innocently claiming nature is taking its course by letting prematurely 
delivered infants die when it was a medical intervention of physicians 
that induced his or her birth.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2175, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, firmly 
establishes that an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from 
his or her mother and who is alive is considered a person for purposes 
of Federal law. For those who exclaim this is an ``assault'' on Roe v. 
Wade, this bill does not touch Roe v. Wade, which clearly pertains to a 
fetus in the uterus, not a baby already expelled outside his or her 
mother. For those who say this legislation is not needed because many 
States already have these laws on the books, I point to Christ Advocate 
Hospital where this still is occurring, and to other hospitals and 
other people like Professor Singer who may continue to uphold this 
concept.
  As an original cosponsor of this bill, I ask that this Chamber 
swiftly pass this piece of legislation. I am dismayed that we need it; 
but protecting the legal status of a baby who is already born is the 
logical, humane course for America to take.

                          ____________________