[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13760-13770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 760, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT 
                                OF 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 257

         Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     760) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-
     birth abortion. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, 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.
         Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 760, it shall be in order 
     to take from the Speaker's table S. 3 and to consider the 
     Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to 
     strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and 
     to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 760 as 
     passed by the House. All points of order against that motion 
     are waived.
  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 the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003. This 
rule makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer). While I personally oppose this amendment, the Committee on 
Rules is allowing for fair and open debate on this amendment.
  H.R. 760 makes it illegal in the United States for a physician to 
perform a partial-birth abortion. As an

[[Page 13761]]

original cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see it 
finally reach the floor of the House of Representatives. I also believe 
that President Bush deserves the opportunity to put an end to this 
horrific act of human violence by signing this legislation into law. I 
also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda for 
passing this important legislation.
  I must tell my colleagues as a mother and grandmother, it is 
astonishing to me that this is still even legal in the United States 
today, but it is. And as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it 
is practiced all too often in this country.
  Partial-birth abortion is a procedure where a pregnant woman's cervix 
is forcefully dilated over a 3-day time period, and the vast majority 
of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy 
mothers.
  Although language banning this procedure has been struck down in the 
past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to 
address the Court's concerns. The five-Justice majority in Stenberg v. 
Carhart thought that Nebraska's definition of ``partial-birth 
abortion'' was vague and could be construed to cover not only abortions 
in which the baby is mostly delivered alive before being killed, but 
also the more common dilation and evacuation, or D&E method.
  H.R. 760 defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which ``the 
person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally 
delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first 
presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, 
or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past 
the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of 
performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially 
delivered living fetus.''
  The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the 
Court will not reject it; it also draws attention to the violence of 
partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be. I am 
pleased that we are bringing this to the floor again today.
  We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome 
constitutional barriers; and I am confident that it will survive 
judicial review.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want this bill in overwhelming 
numbers, believing in their hearts that we as a Nation are better than 
this. We are a better people. To that end I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again, considering the rule for the same 
unconstitutional bill. I must voice my grave concern with H.R. 760, the 
so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Today The New York 
Times says in an editorial, ``Partial Birth Mendacity,'' which means 
lie, that although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term 
abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping 
prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by 
criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first 
trimester, but well before fetal viability.
  My constituents are facing unemployment. They are losing out on child 
tax credit. They need more funding for our first responders, they need 
the promised health care for our veterans; but here we are debating a 
rule on legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and 
threatens women's health.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court struck down 
similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. 
They confirmed again a woman's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe 
v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of 
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
  H.R. 760 suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska 
statute thrown out by the Court. The ban on medical procedures is vague 
and overbroad, and it does not contain an exception from the procedure 
ban when a woman's health is threatened. And it goes so far as to give 
the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for 
money even if he has beaten his wife or rapes her or had threatened her 
life or has deserted her. How crazy is that?
  Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth 
abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is purely a 
political creation. The definition of the procedure that H.R. 760 seeks 
to ban is written in nonmedical language that could cover at least two 
different procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion 
procedure. This vague and overbroad definition, which is probably not 
by accident, would create so much confusion in the medical community 
that doctors would not know which medical procedures might land them in 
jail with a huge fine. We should not make our doctors into criminals.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors 
who perform these procedures, say that the procedure the bill seeks to 
proscribe may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
circumstance to save the life or to preserve the health of the woman 
and only the physician in consultation with the patient and based on 
her circumstances can make this decision. The Congress of the United 
States has never, ever outlawed a medical procedure. What are we doing 
here, and what in the name of God is next?
  Medical professionals and every Federal court in the country that has 
heard this issue, except for one, have agreed that these are safe 
procedures and may be the safest procedures in some circumstances; but 
we are going to take that away. And who will suffer for that? The 
American women.
  Physicians and not politicians and pundits should provide women and 
their families with medical advice. I want a doctor to treat my 
daughters and granddaughters. Women and their families, not the 
government, should make these difficult, private, medical decisions; 
and if that is not the case, then every time a procedure is done, there 
should be a Member of Congress standing at the door okaying it.
  The bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their 
patients by outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, something 
we have never done. We assume that once they have gone through medical 
school, done their internship and their residencies, they ought to know 
what they are doing. Congress would subject women to even more 
dangerous medical procedures and put their health and lives in 
jeopardy. Everybody deserves the best medical care based on the 
circumstances of their particular situation.

                              {time}  1545

  Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous for women, we 
should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortion by 
reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. That is the most 
important thing that we could do; and by increasing funding for title 
X, to require the insurance coverage of contraception, which we will 
not do, making emergency contraception more available, which we are 
afraid of, and increasing research for other contraceptive methods. 
Indeed, I am not at all sure that after this bill is passed and signed 
by the President that the sale of contraceptives will not be in danger.
  H.R. 760 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme 
Court has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an 
exception when the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of 
congressional findings do not change or fulfill constitutional demands 
or protect women's health.
  The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most 
especially the United States Supreme Court, will defer to these 
congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement, but 
the Court has unequivocally said that the power to interpret the 
Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the judiciary, and the 
Court

[[Page 13762]]

has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not, in 
the Court's opinion, make it true.
  Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical 
reason for a health exception does not make that true and it does not 
change the demand of the Constitution. As Ruth Marcus, writing in the 
Washington Post, noted today, ``Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 
different context that if Congress could make a statute 
unconstitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom is 
slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' Think about 
that for a moment. That if Congress could make a statute constitutional 
simply by finding that black is white and we were to determine that, or 
that freedom and slavery are not different, then why would we have 
judicial review?
  So why are we today considering a rule for this unconstitutional 
bill? Richard Posner, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit, who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the 
answer. He wrote that proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned 
with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an 
incidental effect of that opinion may be to discourage late-term 
abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than 
women's health.''
  Judge Posner went on to say that if a statute burdens constitutional 
rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle 
that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those 
rights, then the burden is undue. Those are very important words, Mr. 
Speaker. Those are words from jurists and people who know whereof they 
speak.
  Again Ruth Marcus' article points out that the political agenda is 
clear. Ken Connor, who is the president of the conservative Family 
Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted on 
a measure similar to this last March. ``With this bill,'' he wrote, 
``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice 
created by Roe v. Wade.
  As the mother of three daughters, a grandmother and a longtime 
advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a 
threat to women's health and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's 
constitutional right to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 760.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane 
procedure and it is a grave attack against human dignity and justice. 
This practice must be banned. The bill before us seeks to do just that. 
Life is a gift, and it must be embraced and respected at all stages.
  In a country which espouses the importance of protecting the inherent 
rights of every person, partial-birth abortion denies the rights of our 
most innocent and vulnerable members, our children. We as legislators 
must strive to uphold the truths upon which our great Nation was 
founded, especially that every individual is entitled to life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness.
  Partial-birth abortion is not a sign that women are ``free to 
choose.'' It is a sign that women have been abandoned, that they have 
not had the support and care that they so desperately need.
  There is increasing evidence, Mr. Speaker, that abortion causes 
extreme emotional and psychological damage. We must strive every day to 
ensure that each and every person is guaranteed the most basic of human 
rights, the right to life. Women deserve better than to endure the 
psychological, the physical and the emotional pain and suffering 
associated with partial-birth abortion, and children deserve the chance 
to live.
  It is time for partial-birth abortion to stop. We must have the 
courage and the strength to fight against one of the greatest of all 
human rights violations, partial-birth abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 760, the partial-birth 
abortion ban. A vote for the ban is a vote for life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional.
  The bill before us will not prohibit any abortions. Its supporters 
claim it prohibits a procedure, but the abortion will still take place 
involving another procedure, and I will not inflame the debate by 
describing in detail the alternative procedures that may be used. But I 
will point out that Nebraska had a law banning the same procedure. 
Nearly 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court held in Stenberg v. 
Carhart that that law was unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court said five times in its majority opinion and other 
times in concurring opinions that in order to make a partial-birth 
abortion ban constitutional, the law must contain a health exception to 
allow the procedure, quote, ``where it is necessary, in appropriate 
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the 
mother.'' That is what five Supreme Court justices said was necessary 
to make the bill constitutional. All five are still on the Supreme 
Court.
  In that case, the Court said:
  The question before us is whether Nebraska's statute making criminal 
the performance of a partial-birth abortion violates the Federal 
Constitution as interpreted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. 
Wade. We conclude that it does for at least two independent reasons.
  They said the first reason was that the law lacked an exception for 
the preservation of the health of the mother. The Stenberg court 
reminded us what a long line of cases has held, that, and they say, 
``subsequent to viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and 
even proscribe abortion,'' and they put this in italics, ``except where 
it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation 
of the life or health of the mother.''
  It goes on to say, in quotes, in case we did not understand the 
italics, that the governing standard requires an exception, quote, 
``where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the 
preservation of the life or health of the mother.''
  The Court continues talking about the health exception by saying and 
mentions another quote:
  Justice Thomas said that ``The cases just cited limit this principle 
to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to health.'' 
He is wrong. The cases cited, reaffirmed in Casey, recognize that a 
State cannot subject women's health to significant health risks both in 
that context and also where State regulations force women to use 
riskier methods of abortion. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated 
statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion 
imposed significant health risks. They make it clear that the risk to a 
woman's health is the same whether it happens to arise from regulating 
a particular method of abortion or from barring abortions entirely.
  Finally, the Court says:
  Nebraska has not convinced us that a health exception is, quote, 
``never medically necessary to preserve the health of women.'' Rather, 
a statute that altogether forbids the partial-birth abortion creates a 
significant health risk. The statute subsequently must contain a health 
exception.
  And if we did not get it, the Court reiterates again:
  ``By no means must a State grant physicians unfettered discretion in 
their selection of methods. But where substantial medical authority 
supports the proposition that banning a particular method could 
endanger women's health, Casey requires the statute to include a health 
exception when the procedure is, quote, 'necessary in appropriate 
medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the 
mother.' Requiring such an exception in this case is no departure from 
Casey, but simply a straightforward application of its holding.''

[[Page 13763]]

  Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of 
abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme 
Court in one opinion said at least five times that a health exception 
must be included for the statute to be constitutional. Furthermore, 
they put the exact phrase to be used, ``necessary, in appropriate 
medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the 
mother'' in italics and quotations.
  The majority proposes that we consider a bill without this 
unqualified health exception. The Court made it clear that such a 
health exception is required and, therefore, this rule that requires us 
to consider a bill without that exception ought not pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to defeat the rule so that we can have a 
bill considered with a health exception that might possibly be 
constitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Statement of Policy from the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which says that 
this procedure may be necessary in some circumstances.

 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement of 
                           Policy on Abortion

       The following statement in the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) general policy 
     related to abortion, with specific reference to the procedure 
     referred to as ``intact dilatation and extraction'' (intact D 
     & X).
       1. The abortion debate in this country is marked by serious 
     moral pluralism. Different positions in the debate represent 
     different but important values. The diversity of beliefs 
     should be respected.
       2. ACOG recognizes that the issue of support of or 
     opposition to abortion is a matter of profound moral 
     conviction to its members. ACOG, therefore, respects the need 
     and responsibility of its members to determine their 
     individual positions based on personal values or beliefs.
       3. Termination of pregnancy before viability is a medical 
     matter between the patient and physician, subject to the 
     physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent 
     and the availability of appropriate facilities.
       4. The need for abortions, other than those indicated by 
     serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten maternal 
     welfare, represents failures in the social environment and 
     the educational system.
       The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is 
     to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancies. This can be 
     accomplished by open and honest education, beginning in the 
     home, religious institutions and the primary schools. This 
     education should stress the biology of reproduction and the 
     responsibilities involved by boys, girls, men and women in 
     creating life and the desirability of delaying pregnancies 
     until circumstances are appropriate and pregnancies are 
     planned.
       In addition, everyone should be made aware of the dangers 
     of sexually transmitted diseases and the means of protecting 
     each other from their transmission. To accomplish these aims, 
     support of the community and the school system is essential.
       The medical curriculum should be expanded to include a 
     focus on the components of reproductive biology which pertain 
     to conception control. Physicians should be encouraged to 
     apply these principles in their own practices and to support 
     them at the community level.
       Society also has a responsibility to support research 
     leading to improved methods of contraception for men and 
     women.
       5. Informed consent is an expression of respect for the 
     patient as a person; it particularly respects a patient's 
     moral right to bodily integrity, to self-determination 
     regarding sexuality and reproductive capacities, and to the 
     support of the patient's freedom within caring relationships.
       A pregnant women should be fully informed in a balanced 
     manner about all options, including raising the child 
     herself, placing the child for adoption, and abortion. The 
     information conveyed should be appropriate to the duration of 
     the pregnancy. The professional should make every effort to 
     avoid introducing personal bias.
       6. ACOG supports access to care for all individuals, 
     irrespective of financial status, and supports the 
     availability of all reproductive options. ACOG opposes 
     unnecessary regulations that limit or delay access to care.
       7. If abortion is to be performed, it should be performed 
     safely and as early as possible.
       8. ACOG opposes the harassment of abortion providers and 
     patients.
       9. ACOG strongly supports those activities which prevent 
     unintended pregnancy.
       The College continues to affirm the legal right of a woman 
     to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. ACOG is 
     opposed to abortion of the healthy fetus that has attained 
     viability in a healthy woman. Viability is the capacity of 
     the fetus to survive outside the mother's uterus. Whether or 
     not this capacity exists is a medical determination, may vary 
     with each pregnancy and is a matter for the judgment of the 
     responsible attending physician.


                    Intact Dilatation and Extraction

       The debate regarding legislation to prohibit a method of 
     abortion, such as the legislation banning ``partial birth 
     abortion,'' and ``brain sucking abortions,'' has prompted 
     questions regarding these procedures. It is difficult to 
     respond to these questions because the descriptions are vague 
     and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the 
     medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be 
     interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion 
     and operative obstetric techniques.
       ACOG believes the intent of such legislative proposals is 
     to prohibit a procedure referred to as ``intact dilatation 
     and extraction'' (Intact D & X). This procedure has been 
     described as containing all of the following four elements:
       1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a 
     sequence of days;
       2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling 
     breech;
       3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
       4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a 
     living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but 
     otherwise intact fetus.
       Because these elements are part of established obstetric 
     techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four 
     elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an 
     intact D & X. Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while 
     preserving the life and health of the mother. When abortion 
     is performed after 18 weeks, intact D & X is one method of 
     terminating a pregnancy.
       The physician, in consultation with the patient, must 
     choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient's 
     individual circumstances.
       According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States 
     in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after 
     the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by 
     the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on 
     the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of 
     these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that 
     second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe 
     procedure.
       Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances 
     to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
       Intact D & X is one of the methods available in some of 
     these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could 
     identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as 
     defined above, would be the only option to save the life or 
     preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, 
     may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular 
     circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a 
     woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, 
     based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this 
     decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting 
     specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw 
     techniques that are critical to the lives and health of 
     American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into 
     medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and 
     dangerous.
       Approval by the Executive Board. General policy: January 
     1993. Reaffirmed and revised July 1997. Intact D & X 
     statement: January 1997. Combined: and reaffirmed September 
     2000.

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering, as has already 
been said, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I have joined with 161 
Members in cosponsoring this legislation, and I commend the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for bringing forward this legislation. This is 
the fifth Congress during which this debate has taken place, four of 
which I have been a part of, and I believe an overwhelming majority of 
Americans hope this will be the last and that we will pass this bill 
and have it sent to the President and signed into law.
  I know that it has been repeated time and time again here on the 
floor of the House, but this afternoon I think it is important to 
remind my colleagues of the details of this deplorable procedure. 
Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which the mother's cervix is 
forcibly dilated over a 3-day period. On the third day the child is 
pulled feet first through the birth canal until his or her entire body, 
except for the head, is outside the womb. While the fetus is stuck in 
this position, dangling partly out of the mother's body and just a few 
inches from taking its first breath, the physician inserts and opens 
scissors into the base of the baby's skull, creating a hole in the 
baby's head.
  The physician then either crushes the baby's skull with instruments 
or

[[Page 13764]]

suctions out the baby's brain. With the head now small enough to slip 
through the mother's cervix, the physician pulls the now-lifeless body 
the rest of the way out of its mother, and discards the baby's body as 
medical waste.
  Today you will hear some supporters of partial-birth abortion claim 
this procedure is a critical alternative that must remain legal to 
protect women's health. However, the medical profession offers no 
support for such claims.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill to protect the most 
vulnerable in our Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. 
The proponents of the bill claim that it addresses partial-birth 
abortion, but I think the American people deserve to know what we are 
really voting on today. We are voting to limit a woman's access to safe 
and accepted medical procedures, restrictions that will subject a woman 
to unnecessary risks when she exercises her reproductive right.
  We should be promoting a woman's health. We should not be endangering 
it. We should be debating concrete measures to reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies and to ensure that all pregnant women have 
affordable access to the care they need to deliver healthy babies. 
Instead, here we are spending our time debating legislation that the 
Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court has clearly recognized the need for protecting the 
health of the mother. Yet the anti-choice lobby has chosen to forge 
ahead in their attempts to politicize women's health and chip away at 
our constitutional rights.
  As terrible as it is to acknowledge, things can go tragically wrong 
in the final stages of pregnancy, and in these unimaginable 
circumstances, a woman should not be required to risk her health and 
future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a 
doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the 
necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents. 
Instead, I want every woman in my district and every woman in the 
Nation to have access to whatever procedure she and her physician feel 
is safest and the most appropriate way for her to settle and handle the 
situation.
  Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, 
healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur in the first place.

                              {time}  1600

  Those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of 
the mother. So this debate is actually about limiting a woman's right 
to choose by restricting access to constitutionally protected medical 
procedures.
  The American people deserve to know what we are really doing here 
today. We are really desperately trying to take away reproductive 
choice of every woman in America. I urge my colleagues, do not let this 
happen. Oppose the rule, and oppose H.R. 760.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pro-life. I do not apologize for it. I 
do not demonize people who hold a different view; but I would say 
respectfully to the previous speaker, to the gentlewoman, that this 
really is not a debate about a woman's right to choose or the right to 
life. It does not really find itself divided in that way. Survey after 
survey proves the point.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
ban on partial-birth abortion because this is just an antiseptic term 
for a barbaric procedure. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a 
Democratic Senator, said, memorably, partial-birth abortion is ``near 
infanticide.''
  We can have arguments about this bill, about its constitutionality. 
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Chabot) has gone to great lengths to 
improve this legislation, and we are confident that it is superior to 
the Nebraska bill that failed constitutional muster.
  We can argue the medicine, and we can argue the facts; but the one 
thing that is inarguable is that this practice is inherently, morally 
wrong. What is not arguable is that the practice of delivering a 
newborn child alive, feet first, holding it in the birth canal 
squirming while the back of its head is stabbed with a suction device 
is evil. That, Mr. Speaker, is not arguable.
  Today we will follow our colleagues at the other end of this building 
to take one more step to render that practice unlawful and make that 
which virtually every American knows in his heart to be evil and 
morally wrong also illegal in America.
  Justice has always been defined in this Nation and every society by 
how they deal with the innocent and those who do them harm. Of the 
innocent and defenseless we are urged to do what we can for the least 
of these. Banning partial-birth abortion is the least we can do for the 
least of these.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say to 
the previous speaker that we know what the agenda is. It was pointed 
out today. Kent Connor, the president of the Conservative Family 
Research Council spelled it out. He said, ``With this bill we will 
dismantle, brick by brick, Roe v. Wade.''
  I hope that all of my colleagues are listening in the House, because 
this may be the last vote we will have on choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to this rule and to the underlying bill.
  For 30 years, women in this country have had the right to make 
reproductive choices over their bodies. H.R. 760 is a horrifying 
attempt to seize those hard-earned rights away from women. What this 
legislation claims to do is ban a medical procedure used in late term 
pregnancies, but it does not. Instead, this bill is drafted in such a 
way as to effectively ban a woman's right to choose at any point in her 
pregnancy.
  Let us be clear: this bill opens the door to outlawing all abortions, 
regardless of the circumstances. Furthermore, this bill makes no 
exception for cases when a woman's health is in grave danger or when 
carrying a no-longer viable fetus to term would jeopardize a woman's 
ability to conceive children in the future.
  Equally disturbing is the fact that this bill is blatantly 
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, when 
dealing with restriction on reproductive procedures, an exception must 
always be made to protect both the life and the health of the mother.
  I cannot support a blatantly unconstitutional bill that tells women 
that their health or future reproductive health must be sacrificed, nor 
can I support a bill that has a clear ulterior motive of banning a 
woman's right to make choices over her own body.
  I am pro-choice and believe that the government should stay out of 
people's private, personal decisions. I will protect a woman's right to 
choose, and so I will vote against this unconstitutional, anti-woman's 
rights bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same and to not 
slam the door on a fundamental right that women have had in this 
country for 30 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 760.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this 
rule and this bill. I am from Dayton, Ohio; and this bill is incredibly 
important to the people of Ohio and my district, and as a result, from 
our experience, I believe for the people of this country.
  Ohio passed its ban on this horrific procedure known as partial-birth 
abortion because the people of Ohio know how inhumane and how unsafe 
the practice is. In my district, in Dayton, Ohio, the Women's Medical 
Plus Center of Dayton has performed this horrific procedure, despite 
the fact that the facility is not properly licensed by the

[[Page 13765]]

Ohio Department of Health. It has nothing to do with women's health; it 
has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It has to do with late-term 
abortions and killing viable children.
  The State Health Department attempted to close the Women's Medical 
Plus Center of Dayton, but has been unsuccessful. This bill is an 
important first step in protecting women's health from this center.
  A woman 5 months pregnant came to the Women's Medical Plus Center in 
Dayton, Ohio, to receive a partial-birth abortion. During the 3 days it 
takes to have the procedure, she began to have stomach pains and was 
rushed to a nearby hospital. Within minutes, she was giving birth. A 
medical technician pointed out that the child was alive, but apparently 
the chances of survival from the procedure were slim. After 3 hours and 
8 minutes, this baby died. The community named the baby Hope. Hope was 
a person, a child, a baby, that fought to retain the life that others 
were seeking to end.
  Just 6 months after Baby Hope died, another baby in the middle of 
this 3-day abortion procedure was born alive in the Dayton, Ohio, 
hospital, when her mother went into labor before the abortion could be 
completed. The woman was believed to be 26 weeks pregnant. This time, 
however, despite the massive trauma of the baby's environment, a 
miracle occurred. By grace, this little baby survived, and so she is 
now called by the community Grace.
  I am appalled by the fact that these heinous partial-birth abortion 
attempts occur. Our local paper has indicated most are performed on 
healthy women, that most are performed on healthy fetuses.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am always dismayed by the fact that these fetuses are 
described as ``viable.'' That is one of the saddest things in the 
world.
  I have talked to parents who had this procedure, babies who were in 
utero with their brains on the outside, with no lungs, no possibility 
of living. Always the notion is given if they were just allowed not to 
go through that procedure, they would get down and almost run around 
the room.
  It is not true. It is not true. The parents who have to go through 
this are heartbroken over it, but it is the way they can have further 
children. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who 
perform these procedures say it may be the best or most appropriate 
procedure in a particular circumstance.
  What if your wife or your daughter is in a particular circumstance, 
and you had voted to outlaw the procedure that would be the best for 
her future and her life and maybe even save her life? We have no right 
to do that, Mr. Speaker, no right at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of my fundamental principles is that 
government not interfere with the basic freedoms of our families, and a 
basic freedom for the health of women includes reproductive health 
choices. This legislation threatens that freedom by inappropriately 
intervening in the decisions of patients and their doctors.
  Late-term abortions are, as has been demonstrated time and again, 
accepted medical practice that at times is the only procedure available 
to protect a woman's life and her ability to safely have a healthy baby 
in the future.
  Years ago, when we first started debating this legislation on the 
floor of this House, I was struck that while proponents try to horrify 
people, I was indeed struck by the real cases of real families that 
would be devastated by this amendment, as was pointed out by the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  This legislation further is part of an insidious ongoing assault to 
erode not just reproductive freedoms, but perpetuate a trend as 
shocking as it is unfortunate of some in this Congress, imposing their 
theology on our citizens, regardless of other people's own strongly 
held beliefs and individual needs.
  Only weeks ago, this Congress, because of a theological clash with 
science, voted to make it illegal to use potentially life-saving 
therapies to help with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other degenerative 
or traumatic diseases, leaving people crippled and dying. The vote was 
not just to deny scientific research here, but deny access to medicines 
developed anywhere else. They would make our loved ones suffer in their 
zeal to make their point.
  People who oppose abortion should not have one. Nothing would make me 
happier than for every American woman to have the knowledge, the well-
being, the medical care and the good fortune so that there would never 
have to be another abortion. But until such a day comes, it is wrong to 
prevent a woman's doctor from offering professional skills so that she 
and her family can determine the safest and most appropriate medical 
care for their family.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the defense of 
the most defenseless population in our society, unborn children. 
Specifically, I rise to support the ban on partial-birth abortion.
  This procedure is so horrific that no justification can be given for 
its continuation. In this procedure, a baby is brought through the 
birth canal and just as the baby is about to take his or her first 
breath, the child is killed. If this procedure were done just seconds 
later, it would be considered murder. I cannot think of a set of 
circumstances that would justify this brutal act. To allow the 
continuation of this practice is to devalue the sanctity of life 
itself.
  We cannot allow children, almost born and completely viable outside 
of the womb, to be disposed of in such a heartless manner. Our society 
is based on the idea that every individual should have the right to 
life. I believe that right extends to those who are just about to enter 
our world.
  I urge my colleagues to help defend those who cannot defend 
themselves.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything contradictory to my 
friends on the other side who want to make sure these children are 
born; but if they are poor, they are not going to get the benefit of 
the tax rebate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this measure are so determined to end 
safe and legal abortion in this country, no matter what the procedure, 
that they are unwilling to consider reasonable amendments that would 
protect the health and life of the woman and also would ensure the 
constitutionality of the underlying bill.
  We will vote shortly to reject the Greenwood-Hoyer-Johnson amendment, 
which would permit the particular medical procedure banned by the bill 
if the physician determines that it is necessary to spare the woman 
from serious adverse health consequences. I understand from the 
hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary that supporters of the 
bill expressed concern that the term ``health consequences'' could very 
well allow the attending physician too much latitude.
  But what is fascinating is that another amendment that was proposed 
by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), and myself that would have placed even more stringent 
restrictions on the use of this particular procedure, permitting it 
only to protect the mother from serious adverse physical, and let me 
repeat, physical health consequences, was not made in order.
  This rule should be defeated, Mr. Speaker, because without the 
language that I just enumerated, this bill can put women at risk and 
threaten their daughters with prosecution if they care for them in the 
way they determine to be medically safe and sound.

                              {time}  1615

  Furthermore, without this language, the bill is susceptible to being 
considered by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional again.

[[Page 13766]]

  Now, why pass an extreme measure that would be found 
unconstitutional, rather than accept an amendment that would address 
its potential constitutional defects? Perhaps because we are not 
serious about enacting a bill into law that passes constitutional 
muster, using this bill, if you will, as a perennial political 
exercise.
  But I would suggest that that is not what we ought to be about. Let 
me submit that this bill, as it is presently before this body, is a 
disturbing example of legislative excess.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and 
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  For the last decade, thousands of healthy babies have been tortured 
and murdered every year through the procedure that is commonly known as 
partial-birth abortion. This procedure, which is routinely used during 
the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, kills a baby just seconds 
before he or she takes that first breath outside the womb.
  Mr. Speaker, this congressional body must act now to preserve the 
future of the next generation of this Nation, or this Nation will reap 
the horrible consequences of allowing partial-birth abortion to 
continue.
  Some opponents advocate that this bill is in violation of a 
fundamental right to an abortion as stated in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, 
they are wrong. Numerous medical practitioners and the American Medical 
Association have testified in committee that partial-birth abortion is 
never medically necessary in any situation and is severely below the 
standard of good medical care. In fact, partial-birth abortion can 
threaten the mother's health or her ability to carry future children to 
term.
  As representatives of the people of the United States, we are charged 
with the duty to protect the life and the liberty of the innocent, and 
passage of this bill is a prime example of fulfilling that duty.
  I urge all my colleagues to remember this duty and vote for H.R. 760.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this has become an all too 
familiar moment for me. You see, this is the ninth time in 8 years that 
the Republicans have pushed a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion. 
Yet I continue to be outraged every year at this leadership's self-
righteous attempt to turn back the clock on women's constitutionally 
protected rights, back to the time when women had to leave the country 
or risk their lives in dangerous back-alley procedures.
  The Supreme Court agrees that medical decisions should be made by the 
patient and her doctor and not by a bunch of politicians in Washington 
and their special interests. This is why several medical and health 
organizations, including the American College of OB-GYNs, oppose this 
legislation.
  This legislation was wrong 8 years ago, and it is still wrong. It 
contains no exception whatsoever for women's health. It simply puts 
women's lives at risk. This is a perfect example of how mean-spirited 
and extreme this administration can be. This is a direct attack on Roe 
v. Wade. But more than that, it is another example in a long line of 
this administration's attacks on our rights.
  I cannot stand by and watch as one by one this White House and the 
leadership in this House chew up our rights and spit them out. I stand 
today as a woman and as an American to fight for our constitutionally 
protected rights. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying bill. Wake up, America.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 760, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  It is true that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are 
performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Dr. James McMahon, one 
of the founders of the partial-birth abortion method, in his June 15, 
1995, testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, testified that 
in a series of about 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed, only 9 
percent of those abortions were performed for maternal health reasons. 
Of that group, the most common reason given was depression.
  It is clear many partial-birth abortion procedures occur for purely 
elective or frivolous reasons. He also cited that he performed partial-
birth abortions on babies with no flaws whatsoever, even in the third 
trimester, many as late as 29 weeks, well into the seventh month of 
pregnancy.
  No matter where we stand on the issue of life, most Americans agree 
that the brutal and horrific practice of partial-birth abortion must 
cease to exist. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 760 and to right the 
wrong that has existed for far too long.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in 
support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  We are told that most of these partial-birth abortions take place in 
the fifth and sixth month. This is the same time that I got to share in 
a most wonderful experience, one of the most wonderful experiences of 
my lifetime. My son and daughter-in-law invited me to come in for the 
ultrasound of my grandbaby.
  It was incredible to me as the three of us were in that room and as 
the technician went about moving the instrument around on my daughter-
in-law's abdomen what we saw inside of that womb. We saw the profile of 
a little boy, a profile that made us realize that he was going to look 
much like his father. We saw his little faithful heart beating away. We 
saw the little gestures that he made with his hands. As we looked at 
that little boy, my daughter-in-law and my son knew what they were 
going to name him. They were going to name him after his great 
grandfather. I left that and I went out and I bought the little outfit 
that that little boy would wear home from the hospital.
  May we end this horrible practice in our Nation, where we are endowed 
by our Creator of certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado, how happy I am that she had that experience. I am even more 
happy that that experience showed that that fetus was in good shape and 
would be able to be born and to be healthy.
  We are talking today about women who are faced with the fact that the 
fetus will not be. I think we are getting astray from that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, House 
Resolution 257 is a fair rule that will permit the full House to work 
its will on H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This 
rule makes in order the Greenwood-Hoyer amendment to H.R. 760 and 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Why is the House debating this legislation yet again? Unfortunately, 
the answer to that is those who oppose it have claimed that Congress 
has no power to legislate a ban on partial-birth abortion because of 
the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart ruling.
  Many of these same House Members, however, had no objection to 
standing up to the Supreme Court on other issues. For example, 413 
House Members voted to ban child pornography even after the Supreme 
Court held that the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act was 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying bill, any taking of 
innocent

[[Page 13767]]

life is wrong. This procedure is demonstrably offensive and wrong. When 
a Nation puts people in jail and fines them for destroying the 
potential life of an unborn loggerhead turtle or bald eagle, and pays 
people for taking the potential life of unborn babies, that Nation has 
lost its way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of this rule and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since the first 
time I had an opportunity to vote for this ban, I have had a nephew 
born who is less than 2 pounds when he was born. You could hold him in 
the palm of your hand.
  We have an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 healthy babies that are victims 
of this partial-birth abortion each year, many of them larger than my 
nephew, who lives today. In a country founded on the principle of 
respect for the dignity of life, this is deplorable and must be 
stopped.
  Doctors agree that this is not necessary, and it has been labeled not 
good medicine by the AMA. It can significantly threaten the mother's 
health and future pregnancies; and they inflict terrible pain upon the 
baby, who is a few inches from being born and taking its first breath.
  Twice we have passed this and President Clinton has vetoed it. Today 
we have an opportunity to put this into law. Thomas Jefferson had it 
right when he said that liberty and the pursuit of happiness begins 
with life. I urge my fellow Members to support this rule and to support 
passage.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for America as we are 
poised to pass H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. This 
legislation would stop the gruesome procedure that kills a child just 
inches from birth.
  I will not go into the gory details of this particularly cruel 
procedure, but I will mention that numerous medical experts have 
testified that fetuses are able to fully feel pain after 20 weeks of 
development, at the time when most partial-birth abortion procedures 
occur.
  It is also important to note that health experts agree that partial-
birth abortions are never needed to save the life of the mother. Even 
the AMA has stated that partial-birth abortions pose serious health 
risks to women, and indeed, are not accepted medical practice. Yet this 
gruesome and evil practice continues to take place.
  Today, we take a giant leap forward to end this practice. I look 
forward for the President to sign this bill into law. I urge passage of 
the rule and of the bill to protect the most innocent of our society.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a bill to ban 
partial-birth abortion, called that because the baby is mostly 
delivered before being killed. Finally, after many years of debate and 
two vetos by our former President, this bill is going to become law.
  In a Nation where we have laws to protect turtles' eggs and the 
developing offspring of other endangered species, finally we will 
extend some modest measure of protection to our own developing young 
humans. Finally, the deception of those who defend this procedure has 
been exposed. Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader in the abortion industry, 
admitted that they ``lied through their teeth'' when they claimed this 
procedure was rare.
  In my State of New Jersey, there are at least 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions done each year at one clinic alone. They admit that most of 
these are done on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. Is this the 
best our culture has to offer? Is this the best our society can offer 
to those who are in need? Is this brutal and barbaric procedure 
something we as a society are willing to accept and condone? What does 
it say about us as a civilized society, as a culture, if we cannot 
condemn and outlaw this kind of brutality?
  Let us say today that we will not accept this, that we are better 
than this. Let us support this rule, and let us pass this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to 
protect the lives of women and children in the United States. We must 
ban partial-birth abortions.
  This type of abortion procedure is gruesome. I cannot imagine how 
anyone could have the stomach to perform it. Who, may I ask, who could 
possibly pull a baby from the womb by its feet first, and then stab the 
half-delivered child in the head and then vacuum out its brain? The 
child was inches from taking its first breath, but now it is dead and 
discarded as garbage.
  The last five Congresses have supported a ban on partial-birth 
abortion because a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, 
and because a partial-birth abortion poses significant health risks to 
the mother, and because partial-birth abortion is not recognized as a 
valid medical procedure by the mainstream medical community.
  For this reason, I support the rule. I support H.R. 760, and I oppose 
the Greenwood substitute. I urge my colleagues to join me in banning 
this inhuman procedure once and for all.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put into the record something that is 
stated in a recent New York Times article, because we keep hearing that 
these are babies that have extreme abnormalities. And I quote from the 
article, ``One aspect of the debate has changed. When it began, some 
opponents of the ban said the targeted form of abortion was used only 
when a fetus had extreme abnormalities or a mother's health was 
endangered by pregnancy. Now both sides acknowledge that abortions done 
late in the second trimester, no matter how they are conducted, are 
most often performed to end healthy pregnancies because the woman 
arrived relatively late to her decision to abort.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the statistics on the clinic in 
Pennsylvania were really quite shocking. I thought these were all done 
in hospital situations. I have never heard those kinds of figures for 
anything.
  That aside, let me read about a woman who terminated a pregnancy 
that, they are very rare, I still believe that.
  The decision to terminate a pregnant late in term is an agonizing 
decision for the women and their families. Listen to the story of Viki 
Wilson and her family as she told it in her own words:
  ``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my 
third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician had 
delivered our other children and would do it again this time. At 36 
weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations 
came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that 
detected that all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect. 
Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brains had formed outside her 
skull. What I had thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements 
were, in fact, seizures.
  ``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a 
perinatologist, a pediatric radiologist, and a geneticist, in a 
desperate attempt to find a way to save her; but everyone agreed she 
would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the 
pregnancy progressed and before I went into labor, she would probably 
die from the increased compression in her brain.
  ``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and 
delivery, c-

[[Page 13768]]

section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size of her 
anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the 
birthing process probably rendering me sterile. The doctors also 
recommended against a c-section because they could not justify the 
risks to my health when there was not any hope of saving Abigail.
  ``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical 
professionals. I am a registered nurse and Bill is a physician, so we 
understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. And after 
discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we 
made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E.
  Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that has ever happened to us in 
our lives, but I am grateful that Bill and I were able to make this 
difficult decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical 
options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. 
Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do 
not complicate the tragedies that we already face. Oppose H.R. 760.''
  Mr. Speaker, for Viki and her family and for other Vikis yet to come, 
I hope that my colleagues will oppose this rule and oppose the 
underlying bill, H.R. 760. And I urge them to remember that once this 
bill passes the House, if it does, then it will be substituted for the 
Senate bill. The Senate bill at least had the protection in it that was 
passed by Senator Dorgan on his request that says that Roe v. Wade 
would be preserved. Obviously, by substituting this bill for that bill, 
Roe v. Wade will not be preserved.

                [From the New York Times, June 4, 2003]

                   ``Partial Birth'' Mendacity, Again

       If the so-called partial-birth abortion ban now careering 
     toward almost certain approval by the full House this week 
     has a decidedly familiar ring, it is not your imagination 
     playing tricks. The trickery here belongs to the measure's 
     sponsors.
       Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term 
     abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a 
     sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. 
     Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after 
     the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed, 
     the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme 
     Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three 
     years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the 
     bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the 
     health of the woman.
       Plainly, the measure's backers are counting on the public 
     not to read the fine print. Their strategy is to curtail 
     access to abortion further as the inevitable legal challenge 
     wends its way back to the Supreme Court for another showdown. 
     They obviously hope that by that time, there will have been a 
     personnel change that will shift the outcome their way.
       House members who vote for this bill will be participating 
     in a cynical exercise that disrespects the rule of law and 
     women's health while threatening the fundamental right of 
     women to make their own childbearing decisions. 
     Representatives who care about such things will not go along.
                                  ____


                [From The Washington Post, June 4, 2003]

                    `Partial Birth,' Partial Truths

                            (By Ruth Marcus)

       The poisonous national debate over what's known as partial-
     birth abortion resumes this week, and this time for real: The 
     House is expected to handily approve a prohibition on the 
     procedure, and the Senate has already passed its version. 
     While his predecessor twice vetoed bills outlawing partial-
     birth abortion, President Bush is eager to sign legislation 
     that he says will ``protect infants at the very hour of their 
     birth.''
       For those who support abortion rights, partial-birth 
     abortion is not the battleground of choice, which is 
     precisely why those who oppose abortion have seized on the 
     issue. The procedure is gruesome, as indeed are all abortions 
     performed at that stage of pregnancy. Although partial-birth 
     abortion is routinely described as a late-term procedure, 
     this label is misleading. The procedure isn't performed until 
     after the 16th week of pregnancy, but it's already legal for 
     states to prohibit abortions once a fetus is viable, at about 
     24 weeks. More than 40 states have such bans, and properly 
     so. The Supreme Court has said that abortions must be 
     available even after fetuses are viable if necessary to 
     protect the life or health of the mother, and it may be that 
     the health exception ought to be stricter. But this has 
     nothing to do with a partial-birth abortion ban. The law 
     would not prevent any abortion, before viability or after. 
     Instead, it would make one particular procedure--one that may 
     be the safest method for some women--a criminal act.
       Indeed, even as they dwell on the gory details of the 
     partial-birth procedure, the groups pushing for a ban on it 
     don't seem to be doing anything to make it easier for women 
     to obtain abortions earlier. Rather, the rest of their 
     antiabortion agenda has been devoted to putting practical and 
     legal roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortions at any 
     stage of pregnancy. Thus, a pregnant teenager faced with 
     multiple hurdles--no abortion provider nearby, no money, a 
     parental consent law--may end up letting her pregnancy 
     progress to the point where she is seeking a second-trimester 
     abortion.
       Then there are situations arising from the availability of 
     medical technology that permits a previously impossible 
     glimpse inside the womb. Amniocentesis, which doctors urge 
     for women over 35 because of the heightened risk of birth 
     defects, is not performed until the 15th or 16th week of 
     pregnancy. Other fetal defects may be detected on sonograms 
     only at that stage or later. This puts women squarely in the 
     zone where partial-birth abortion becomes an awful 
     possibility.
       When it struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law 
     three years ago, the Supreme Court cited two distinct 
     problems. First, the law was supposed to prohibit only 
     partial-birth abortion, in which the fetus is partially 
     delivered and then dismembered. But, intentionally or not, it 
     was written so inexactly that it could also apply to the most 
     common--though scarcely less grisly--technique for second-
     trimester abortions, dilation and evacuation, in which the 
     fetus is dismembered before being removed from the womb. Such 
     a bar, the court said, would be unconstitutional because it 
     imposes an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to abortion 
     before the fetus is viable.
       Second, the ban made no exception that would allow the 
     procedure to be performed when necessary to protect the 
     health of the mother. In cases of hydrocephaly, for example, 
     partially delivering the fetus and then collapsing the skull 
     can reduce damage to the cervix--and possibly preserve a 
     woman's ability to carry another child to term. The American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists told the justices 
     that the partial-birth procedure ``presents a variety of 
     potential safety advantages. Especially for women with 
     particular health conditions, there is medical evidence that 
     [it] may be safer than available alternatives.''
       The legislation now before Congress tries to avoid the 
     first problem identified by the court by defining partial-
     birth abortion more precisely. Opponents contend that the new 
     definition could still apply to the more common technique. 
     The bill's supporters argue this is not true, but they could 
     have explicitly exempted such abortions from the law's reach 
     if they really wanted to make that clear.
       A bigger problem is the cavalier way in which Congress 
     leapfrogged the court's requirement for a health exception: 
     Lawmakers simply declared that partial-birth abortion ``is 
     never medically indicated to preserve the health of the 
     mother.'' As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a different 
     context, if Congress ``could make a statute constitutional 
     simply by `finding' that black is white or freedom, slavery, 
     judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' What if 
     Congress, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, 
     ``found'' that segregated schools could be equal after all?
       The political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, president of the 
     conservative Family Research Council, spelled this out in an 
     e-mail after the Senate vote last March. ``With this bill,'' 
     he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, 
     the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.'' Indeed, in 
     urging the overturning of partial-birth abortion laws in 
     Illinois and Wisconsin, federal appeals court Judge Richard 
     Posner, one of the nation's most prominent conservative 
     jurist, said such statutes have nothing to do with protecting 
     fetuses. Rather, said the judge, ``they are concerned with 
     making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion. . . 
     . The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than 
     women's health.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the rule on the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
2003. As a member of the bipartisan congressional prolife caucus and as 
a doctor who has dedicated over 2 decades of my life to my obstetrics 
practice, I believe this unnecessary procedure should be banned.
  As a physician who has delivered over 3,000 babies, I am personally 
opposed to any type of abortion, but in particular the only reason to 
select the partial-birth abortion procedure is to ensure that the baby 
is dead when it is delivered.
  As a physician, I recognize that serious complications can occur 
during the last trimester of pregnancy. However,

[[Page 13769]]

if the mother's health dictates that the pregnancy must be concluded 
and a normal birth is not possible, the baby, of course, may be 
delivered by hysterotomy or cesarean section. Whether the infant lives 
or dies depends upon the severity of the medical complications and the 
degree of prematurity, but that outcome is dictated by the disease 
process itself. The fate of the infant during a partial-birth abortion 
procedure is predetermined by the nature of the procedure performed, 
and it is uniformly fatal.
  During my 2 decades of the practice of obstetrics, with my share of 
high-risk pregnancies, I never encountered a situation where the 
partial-birth abortion procedure was required. I believe that it is 
inhuman and never medically necessary. The procedure itself, always 
fatal to the baby, carries substantial risk for the mother as well.
  Partial birth abortions are done in the third trimester when an 
unborn child has developed organs and all the characteristics of a 
newborn baby. Through the use of technology, patients now have the 
opportunity to see how life develops before birth. Parents can now 
watch the beating of an unborn child's heart as early as 20 days after 
conception and can see movement of the child's arms and legs after 3 
months' gestation.
  In 1995, a panel of 12 doctors representing the American Medical 
Association voted unanimously to recommend banning partial-birth 
abortion, calling it ``basically repulsive.''
  I agree with my colleagues at the AMA that it is repulsive and 
unnecessary. I strongly support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 
2003. I believe the United States Constitution is very clear when it 
guarantees a right to life. Partial-birth abortion has no place in a 
civilized society.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to a family 
medical emergency, I am unable to be present for the debate and vote on 
H. Res. 257, the rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 760. 
However, I wish to submit this statement for the Record to ensure that 
my position on this legislation is clear.
  While I am opposed to H.R. 760, I am encouraged that the Rules 
Committee has finally allowed a substitute amendment to this bill. For 
the fifth time in nine years, this bill has been brought to the floor 
of the House for a vote. But, for the first time, a compromise 
substitute amendment is being allowed. I support the substitute 
amendment offered by Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer and therefore, 
if I had been present, would have voted in favor of H. Res. 257 to 
allow this compromise to be brought to the floor.
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Following this vote, proceedings will resume on 3 motions to suspend 
the rules considered earlier today and those votes will be conducted as 
5-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280, 
nays 138, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No 236]

                               YEAS--280

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--138

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Jones (OH)
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (KY)
     Oberstar
     Pickering
     Rothman
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1658

  Messrs. HONDA, SPRATT and BERMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''

[[Page 13770]]


  Messrs. HINOJOSA, JOHN, ISRAEL and BUYER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________